Thread: 10 Questions for an Intelligent Christian

Originally Posted by Mark75

Yes, in the sense that both can be said to be answering prayers with the criteria for what could be considered an answer the video provides. It is "narrow" in that it is specific in dealing with a specific idea of god, yes, however it is no less relevant for this narrowness.

This is why I say it is a confirmation bias, because God and a milk jug are comparable in no other way apart from the specific idea that was mentioned. God is not an object, God is non-dualistic. There is no praying "to" a God out there and waiting for an "answer." There is praying and that's its own reward. The answers become obvious, yet we don't invent them or project arbitrary meanings (sad to say, this is uncommon). We're grateful for the influence of prayer but realize it doesn't "cause" anything.

Just because the function can be seen as universal, it doesn't negate the Reality of God. The problem is more of the languaging. I might even say that Christianity.com has simplified the reasoning as to be obscure, but it's still valid in essence, because after all, this better falls within the understanding of karmic unity - whereby every thought and action is registered in the universe and gives rise to certain circumstances and conditions.

The skeptic may say that prayers are futile, powerless, purposeless and/or don't "do" anything, but the skeptic has trouble recognizing context - the paradigm of God, which alone allows the "rules" for all "events" and "happenings" to take place - all of which are not applicable to a milk jug (as Creator of the Universe, etc).

Originally Posted by Mark75

Actually, by this specific definition of god, in regards to answering prayers as defined in the video, the milk jug and god are indistinguishable in their nature. You may hold other ideas about what god is, but the video is totally relevant and valid in its demonstration.

It is totally relevant on its own, but just like every other argument that exists. However, it is invalid because it doesn't take into account the meaning of God. Put it into context, and you find that it doesn't work out: a milk jug was just a made up, random fantasy. God is much less than a made up, random fantasy, for the reason why prayer is even valid from the first place.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Exactly what part of receiving $1,000 is not objectively verifiable? I suppose we might need to be more rigorous in our definition and our prayer and specify that we want to receive $1,000 in USD in an unexpected way within a single payment so that we might exclude the possibility that god has us on a divine under-the-cushions payment plan 25 cents at a time. We could even go further and pray to receive it on a particular day. Then it's just a matter of checking your pockets and your bank account on or after that day to see if you're $1,000 richer. The criteria for "yes" and "no" is pretty clear in that case. But then again, the vagueness that's allowed with these answers is kind of the point the video makes, isn't it? That we could rationalize that god is giving it to us in small payments or that he just said no or wait. And therein lies the illusion since this vagueness means that praying to any conceivable thing could produce these "answers".

I agree, but it doesn't mean praying is false, it means people basically just want to make up reasons for everything. I don't agree that God "answers" prayers in such ways. Plus, it could be "yes" and "no" at the same time. What if you got a $1000 dollars and then somebody stole it? "Yes then no?" It doesn't mean anything; they're just words. So I guess the problem is actually the Christianity.com's quote of prayer's being answered is misleading to skeptics. I think we should consider that prayers are effective, however not within an intellectual understanding. Understandably, this is difficult for most intellectuals.

Originally Posted by Mark75

What do you consider praying for good to be? Do you think god responds to these prayers and interacts with the world in consideration of things people have prayed for?

Praying for the "good" is for the better of everybody, and therefore within a cosmic, karmic unity. This involves no human judgment and traditionally all qualities of God are worthy to be brought into the world. If I pray for a sick person to get better, it most likely influences the results, but those results are not predictably or logically causal from the prayer. If the person recovers, I don't need to say "my prayer was answered", although it may be convenient. If the person dies, I don't need to say "my prayer was ignored", nor if the person stays sick for the rest of my life do I need to conclude that my prayer is "on hold." With a prayer there is an intention, and if it is strong it emanates of its own nature, not because it is "causing something", but because it contributes to the potential for something to change.

When somebody has a prayer for world-peace, world-peace may not suddenly fall out of the sky one day, but the person may devotionally contribute peace to the world in more ways than they will expect. When I pray earnestly to God for inner strength, I will certainly find it, as the "Father is within me". If I pray to a milk jug, I will never have that strength because the belief is intrinsically a fantasy, regardless of how much I believe it is true. The faith in God will always transcend all other fantasies because of its intrinsic, all-inclusive affirmation. The only problem that the majority mankind shares is how to recognize God and not confuse Him with something external or limited.

^ Not cool...

Yet it shows pretty much the way people utilize beliefs and religion to achieve their personal goals.
Or don't you agree?

The fact if it's cool is completely irrelevant. I personally find it hilarious.

Originally Posted by really

This is why I say it is a confirmation bias, because God and a milk jug are comparable in no other way apart from the specific idea that was mentioned. God is not an object, God is non-dualistic. There is no praying "to" a God out there and waiting for an "answer." There is praying and that's its own reward. The answers become obvious, yet we don't invent them or project arbitrary meanings (sad to say, this is uncommon). We're grateful for the influence of prayer but realize it doesn't "cause" anything.

You seem to be confusing the pertinence of the subject to yourself rather than those it is intended for; those who say God does answer and listen to every prayer and that things come of it.

Otherwise, it is the equivalent to meditating. How is praying for the sake of just praying any better than simply meditating? Not even a fundamentalist scientist will dispute the benefits of meditating (sitting there relaxed, I mean).

Just because the function can be seen as universal, it doesn't negate the Reality of God. The problem is more of the languaging. I might even say that Christianity.com has simplified the reasoning as to be obscure, but it's still valid in essence, because after all, this better falls within the understanding of karmic unity - whereby every thought and action is registered in the universe and gives rise to certain circumstances and conditions.

So now you are saying that these things will manifest in some way.

Do not forget that even inane thoughts have impact but that doesn't mean that they are at all significant. Even if you sit there and think of shit you are still manifesting a thought pattern and emitting a minor electrical signal from your brain; but that does not mean a thing.

It is how you manifest your thoughts through your actions that matters; not in thinking that your thoughts are in some unison with the universe. That is nonsense and it is nonsense because you cannot know if your thoughts actually do anything or not.

The better thought is to take power in the idea of chaos. I am a strict adherent of chaotic theory in that the most minor of thoughts that manifest into actions do take effect in the world; and that is undeniable.

However, I wouldn't take away the beauty of that by using some vague and ill-defined concept as "karma".

The skeptic may say that prayers are futile, powerless, purposeless and/or don't "do" anything, but the skeptic has trouble recognizing context - the paradigm of God, which alone allows the "rules" for all "events" and "happenings" to take place - all of which are not applicable to a milk jug (as Creator of the Universe, etc).

You have missed the point.

The point was that if praying to a certain deity does something, then if I pray to something as nonsensical as a jug of milk; there ought to be a difference. But, there is no difference. Why is there no difference?

From what you said, it is then pertinent to ask; what is the difference between praying and simply meditating? (sitting there relaxed and calmly breathing)

It is totally relevant on its own, but just like every other argument that exists. However, it is invalid because it doesn't take into account the meaning of God. Put it into context, and you find that it doesn't work out: a milk jug was just a made up, random fantasy. God is much less than a made up, random fantasy, for the reason why prayer is even valid from the first place.

This quote illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the argument. Perhaps considering the above you will now notice a difference.

If God is some divine being that has any interaction at all with prayers, then there ought to be a difference if a person prays to even a rock.

I agree, but it doesn't mean praying is false, it means people basically just want to make up reasons for everything. I don't agree that God "answers" prayers in such ways. Plus, it could be "yes" and "no" at the same time. What if you got a $1000 dollars and then somebody stole it? "Yes then no?" It doesn't mean anything; they're just words. So I guess the problem is actually the Christianity.com's quote of prayer's being answered is misleading to skeptics. I think we should consider that prayers are effective, however not within an intellectual understanding. Understandably, this is difficult for most intellectuals.

The video is primarily intended to those that do agree that God answers prayers in such ways but here you are bringing your own opinion and trying to denigrate a thread anyway - something you have a history of doing.

Yes and no can function in utility - something else that you have had a tendency to misunderstand. In utility, an answer ought to be answerable in an affirmative or negative fashion; even energies if you will.

It seems to me that you think you ought to not think for this to work.

I understand that if you are willing to admit that only those that do not think will comply with its function. It makes sense to me considering that spiritualists and religious are stupider than nonreligious and atheists (something that is provable - and I have in other threads).

Praying for the "good" is for the better of everybody, and therefore within a cosmic, karmic unity. This involves no human judgment and traditionally all qualities of God are worthy to be brought into the world. If I pray for a sick person to get better, it most likely influences the results, but those results are not predictably or logically causal from the prayer. If the person recovers, I don't need to say "my prayer was answered", although it may be convenient. If the person dies, I don't need to say "my prayer was ignored", nor if the person stays sick for the rest of my life do I need to conclude that my prayer is "on hold." With a prayer there is an intention, and if it is strong it emanates of its own nature, not because it is "causing something", but because it contributes to the potential for something to change.

What would work better;
- Praying for karmic spiritual intangible [insert other vagaries here] for the good of someone
or
- Acting for the good of the person by taking manifest actions (ie. giving them medication or reassuring them)

When it comes down to it, prayer is no different than meditation; completely selfish.

What say you of someone, like me, who dedicates there life to the ideal that random inane actions have chaotic effects in the world? That is much more beautiful and intriguing than something that requires you not too think to make sense.

When somebody has a prayer for world-peace, world-peace may not suddenly fall out of the sky one day, but the person may devotionally contribute peace to the world in more ways than they will expect. When I pray earnestly to God for inner strength, I will certainly find it, as the "Father is within me". If I pray to a milk jug, I will never have that strength because the belief is intrinsically a fantasy, regardless of how much I believe it is true. The faith in God will always transcend all other fantasies because of its intrinsic, all-inclusive affirmation. The only problem that the majority mankind shares is how to recognize God and not confuse Him with something external or limited.

Is it not better to seek this form of self-confidence without the apparent need of some supernatural or third-party influence?

If I do not believe in spirits, Gods, or anything supernatural - tell me how you think that I rationalize all my actions as good and helpful to mankind?

What do you honestly think I tell myself to justify that all my actions are meaningful and to good for people?

It seems to me that you are completely neglecting that ideal....

..or are you just not intelligent enough - as you have said?

~

p much what he said.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You seem to be confusing the pertinence of the subject to yourself rather than those it is intended for; those who say God does answer and listen to every prayer and that things come of it.

Care to elaborate? You think it's not a confirmation bias? The power of prayer is shared equally between everybody. God does not answer every prayer logically, but it is we who project the answers in a word form. The mentalization of manifestation is not the manifesting nor the potentiality itself. Concepts can be applied wherever you see fit, but the context is what holds the importance and what makes them valid.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Otherwise, it is the equivalent to meditating. How is praying for the sake of just praying any better than simply meditating? Not even a fundamentalist scientist will dispute the benefits of meditating (sitting there relaxed, I mean).

I don't understand your point. "Sitting there, relaxed" is not meditation, it's "sitting there, relaxed." Meditation comes in a variety of specific forms, mostly to achieve states of higher awareness and clarity, but not to just sit there for the sake of it. Prayer is slightly different in that it holds an intention or devotion; there is a crossover point to meditation but they are not exactly alike. Prayer is more often supposed to be for others, whereas meditation is more often for oneself. Both are generally unselfish in true terms and help admit ones powerlessness.

Originally Posted by O'nus

So now you are saying that these things will manifest in some way.

Do not forget that even inane thoughts have impact but that doesn't mean that they are at all significant. Even if you sit there and think of shit you are still manifesting a thought pattern and emitting a minor electrical signal from your brain; but that does not mean a thing.

In a karmically united universe, yes, thinking "shit" does mean a thing, it means you think "shit" and bring about likely circumstances. Remember the unity means all-inclusiveness. As it was said in the Bible: "Why, even all the hairs on your head have been counted!" Nothing is left out. If you think that "thinking shit" doesn't mean anything, go ahead and do it for the rest of your life and see where you end up! Obviously that influences more than what is just logical to your own viewpoint, it influences the world around you. You might even get sent to a mental hospital. Everything you do becomes history, everything you are is what you have become.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is how you manifest your thoughts through your actions that matters; not in thinking that your thoughts are in some unison with the universe. That is nonsense and it is nonsense because you cannot know if your thoughts actually do anything or not.

The better thought is to take power in the idea of chaos. I am a strict adherent of chaotic theory in that the most minor of thoughts that manifest into actions do take effect in the world; and that is undeniable.

However, I wouldn't take away the beauty of that by using some vague and ill-defined concept as "karma".

All thoughts/actions take effects in the universe and all is fair. That is karma. It doesn't matter how many different ways you word it, it's still the same. You do not "know about it" because it is not intellectual. You will only know it with a clear mind, otherwise you are claiming to be God out of pure narcissism.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The point was that if praying to a certain deity does something, then if I pray to something as nonsensical as a jug of milk; there ought to be a difference. But, there is no difference. Why is there no difference?

There is no difference because the context is ignored out of a confirmation bias. You'd know the difference if you knew the true meaning of prayer rather than judging its effects. The difference is, the jug of milk is an external fascination, but God is an inner certainty. If you want it to make sense, put it into context instead of playing with symbols.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If God is some divine being that has any interaction at all with prayers, then there ought to be a difference if a person prays to even a rock.

You won't notice the difference because you're just playing with concepts that are meaningless on their own. Praying to God represents an intention to that which is the Father of All Things. For that reason there is a letting go and giving up to God. Surrendering to a rock does not empower the heart, it merely may satisfy the mind. It is more powerful to see God as the All rather than the particular. If you see God as something outside yourself you have to make up some reason or justification for it.

If I play a card game with someone there are a certain chances that I will win. If I play a card game with a blind person, the chances are the same but they are influenced by other governing factors that are not comprehensible. Is playing against a blind person therefore the same as a playing against a normal person? Only in narrow terms; only by irrelevancies.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The video is primarily intended to those that do agree that God answers prayers in such ways but here you are bringing your own opinion and trying to denigrate a thread anyway - something you have a history of doing.

[...]

..or are you just not intelligent enough - as you have said?

~

You would save yourself some writing if you gave respect. Remember this is a forum.

I am no different than others who pray with true intentions.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes and no can function in utility - something else that you have had a tendency to misunderstand. In utility, an answer ought to be answerable in an affirmative or negative fashion; even energies if you will.

It seems to me that you think you ought to not think for this to work.

"Yes" and "no" are unnecessary judgments for the work of prayer. What's their purpose and utility? They seem to be a justification for people who have great expectations of prayers to work. Despite this, all prayers are answered in one way or another. Our comments are not needed.

Thinking is not required for prayer when praying from the heart. Thinking is irrelevant, and whether you do or don't for the purpose of prayer doesn't make the prayer better or worse, but its effects still exist in the universe.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I understand that if you are willing to admit that only those that do not think will comply with its function. It makes sense to me considering that spiritualists and religious are stupider than nonreligious and atheists (something that is provable - and I have in other threads).

You can't "prove" that, and besides, you miss the point by categorizing things instead of seeing them for what they are. That is the same problem in the milk-jug/rock argument.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What would work better;
- Praying for karmic spiritual intangible [insert other vagaries here] for the good of someone
or
- Acting for the good of the person by taking manifest actions (ie. giving them medication or reassuring them)

It depends on what you mean by "work better." Again, this is the importance of context. If you can get good medication that is reliable to work for a sick patient, then go ahead and get it. If something seems inevitable, such as your mother not being able to get successful medical help from the best of doctors, then pray for a miracle. Go and sit with her in hospital. It's all the same really; it's your intention that matters. Yet while it's obvious that being rational can be most assisting, other times, such as in the latter case described, it no longer serves a purpose. It takes some maturity, contrary to most skeptics. Being irrational or "non-thinking" doesn't always mean something is wrong, invalid, unsuccessful or ineffective.

Originally Posted by O'nus

When it comes down to it, prayer is no different than meditation; completely selfish.

Don't generalize, it depends on the persons intention. If you pray for a new car it is selfish, if you pray for the better of others it is selfless. People find to their disappointment that selfish prayers (for personal gain etc.) are weak anyway. That's childish.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What say you of someone, like me, who dedicates there life to the ideal that random inane actions have chaotic effects in the world? That is much more beautiful and intriguing than something that requires you not too think to make sense.

I say look further into it and don't decide it by what is more beautiful; by what is more intellectual.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is it not better to seek this form of self-confidence without the apparent need of some supernatural or third-party influence?

There's nothing third-party or supernatural about existence itself. It belongs to God, so we pray to God. They are one and the same.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If I do not believe in spirits, Gods, or anything supernatural - tell me how you think that I rationalize all my actions as good and helpful to mankind?

Dedicate your life to love. Humble yourself. You can be rational at the same time.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What do you honestly think I tell myself to justify that all my actions are meaningful and to good for people?

I don't know, you tell me. Why are you asking me?

Originally Posted by really

Care to elaborate? You think it's not a confirmation bias? The power of prayer is shared equally between everybody. God does not answer every prayer logically, but it is we who project the answers in a word form. The mentalization of manifestation is not the manifesting nor the potentiality itself. Concepts can be applied wherever you see fit, but the context is what holds the importance and what makes them valid.

It seems you lack the ability to watch videos and listen to them at the same time. My argument, and the videos, function on confirmation bias. This is precisely how prayer works for those people, but not you it would seem. Let us try not to equivocate it - which you are apt to doing.

Furthermore, you might find that if you read my posts that I do not disagree with what you have said here.

I don't understand your point. "Sitting there, relaxed" is not meditation, it's "sitting there, relaxed." Meditation comes in a variety of specific forms, mostly to achieve states of higher awareness and clarity, but not to just sit there for the sake of it. Prayer is slightly different in that it holds an intention or devotion; there is a crossover point to meditation but they are not exactly alike. Prayer is more often supposed to be for others, whereas meditation is more often for oneself. Both are generally unselfish in true terms and help admit ones powerlessness.

Explicitly distinguish prayer and meditation for me then because it seems you are depending on a very thin line that's based on vagaries.

In a karmically united universe, yes, thinking "shit" does mean a thing, it means you think "shit" and bring about likely circumstances. Remember the unity means all-inclusiveness. As it was said in the Bible: "Why, even all the hairs on your head have been counted!" Nothing is left out. If you think that "thinking shit" doesn't mean anything, go ahead and do it for the rest of your life and see where you end up! Obviously that influences more than what is just logical to your own viewpoint, it influences the world around you. You might even get sent to a mental hospital. Everything you do becomes history, everything you are is what you have become.

You completely fail to understand my point again. I am not surprised. It seems you like to get ideas in your head about others and just rant on about it.

You might find that, again, if you read my posts, I do not disagree with this. In fact, I said it.

All thoughts/actions take effects in the universe and all is fair. That is karma. It doesn't matter how many different ways you word it, it's still the same. You do not "know about it" because it is not intellectual. You will only know it with a clear mind, otherwise you are claiming to be God out of pure narcissism.

Why do you have to employ a vague and ill-defined concept of karma on something that is much more majestic on its own? Why do you feel the need to inject a fantasy and delusion onto something that is beautiful and perfect?

Karma is not a defined concept and relies on delusional and un-intelligent thinking to understand. Yes, intellectuals have difficulty understanding, because you have to be stupid to believe in things that do not have definitions. But I am sure you will take that out of context.

Also, where the hell did I claim to be God?

There is no difference because the context is ignored out of a confirmation bias. You'd know the difference if you knew the true meaning of prayer rather than judging its effects. The difference is, the jug of milk is an external fascination, but God is an inner certainty. If you want it to make sense, put it into context instead of playing with symbols.

I don't even know if I want to elaborate because you have already ignored my points. But, what is the difference between prayer and meditation is basically my response again.

You won't notice the difference because you're just playing with concepts that are meaningless on their own. Praying to God represents an intention to that which is the Father of All Things. For that reason there is a letting go and giving up to God. Surrendering to a rock does not empower the heart, it merely may satisfy the mind. It is more powerful to see God as the All rather than the particular. If you see God as something outside yourself you have to make up some reason or justification for it.

The point is that there is no difference. Even psychological studies (demonstrated by Lee A. Kirkpatrick) can demonstrate that prayer functions on the same basis as a relationship and attachment theory. It is based on its intention for support and consolidation but the methods are nothing but placebo. Hence, there is really no difference between praying to god or a rock, jug of milk, shit, etc. The results are all the same - and I am speaking of the internal and personal.

Pay attention.

You would save yourself some writing if you gave respect. Remember this is a forum.

You would also save us a lot of bandwidth if you did not degrade so many threads into your own meandering nonsense rather than stick to topics and pertinent issues. But here you are again driving another thread into your own philosophy.

"Yes" and "no" are unnecessary judgments for the work of prayer. What's their purpose and utility? They seem to be a justification for people who have great expectations of prayers to work. Despite this, all prayers are answered in one way or another. Our comments are not needed.

Maybe you should consider confirmation when you say things like this. Unfortunately, just saying these things does not make them true.

Thinking is not required for prayer when praying from the heart. Thinking is irrelevant, and whether you do or don't for the purpose of prayer doesn't make the prayer better or worse, but its effects still exist in the universe.

Now let us examine what "praying from the heart" means.

Perhaps you could define that in a way that is not bias or perhaps confirmation or perhaps self-fulfilling prophecy. Some words which you use but apparently don't apply to yourself.

Also, it seems you fail to recognize the benefits of simply meditation and how it drastically helps people. People receive just as many benefits from no supernatural influence to supernatural influence. What do you think of that?

You can't "prove" that, and besides, you miss the point by categorizing things instead of seeing them for what they are. That is the same problem in the milk-jug/rock argument.

Of course if I was faced with proof that I did not want to accept, I would argue the definition of proof to.

But that is also the most desperate and pathetic argument you could make.

What argument or proof could be implemented then to prove you wrong?

^ This is something which spiritualists, theists, and all religious alike have a profound failure in facing. Even with me saying this, there will only be a vague response that does not actually have any substance.

It depends on what you mean by "work better." Again, this is the importance of context. If you can get good medication that is reliable to work for a sick patient, then go ahead and get it. If something seems inevitable, such as your mother not being able to get successful medical help from the best of doctors, then pray for a miracle. Go and sit with her in hospital. It's all the same really; it's your intention that matters. Yet while it's obvious that being rational can be most assisting, other times, such as in the latter case described, it no longer serves a purpose. It takes some maturity, contrary to most skeptics. Being irrational or "non-thinking" doesn't always mean something is wrong, invalid, unsuccessful or ineffective.

This is bull-shit and you know it. The same amount of miracles happen for those that do pray for those that do not. What say you to that?

I never pray and I would say I have had "miracles" (statistical in-normalities) - what of me then?

Don't generalize, it depends on the persons intention. If you pray for a new car it is selfish, if you pray for the better of others it is selfless. People find to their disappointment that selfish prayers (for personal gain etc.) are weak anyway. That's childish.

Don't be prejudice.

If you had any insight at all you'd know that what I mean is that they are selfish in the sense of how they are conducted. A person sits and thinks to them self. Although some people pray out loud, it is still a selfish act as it is talking your thoughts out loud.

I really hope you get the point.

I say look further into it and don't decide it by what is more beautiful; by what is more intellectual.

I am looking further into it by asking you!

I want to know if someone out there really thinks it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of doing good alone and no supernatural influence

or

If it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of a supernatural/spiritual/deity/divine influence.

Be honest now.

There's nothing third-party or supernatural about existence itself. It belongs to God, so we pray to God. They are one and the same.

Stop using circular logic - you're smarter than that.

You also completely ignored my point.

I have the respect to acknowledge your points, the least you could do is be mature and give that respect back.

Please re-consider what you quoted and consider that you are being incredibly hypocritical by not taking my question seriously.

Dedicate your life to love. Humble yourself. You can be rational at the same time.

I don't know, you tell me. Why are you asking me?

This is a testament to your inability to think of others and be insightful - yet you tell me to go seek more and ask more questions.

Maybe you should consider the idea that people can do good and be good without having the influence of anything but the idea of good.

I do not believe in prayer, Gods, spirits, characteristic entities, magic, divine influence, etc. But yet I still do good and dedicate my life to helping others.

Again, why do you think I do that?

Please, try to be a little more insightful this time and not so damn closed-minded.

~

O'nus, I don't mean to come across as disrespectful at all. I don't see what you have to get so defensive and offended about. If anything you've made more degenerative comments than I have. Settle down or something, have a Kit Kat. This stuff is not the easiest to understand, so be patient.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It seems you lack the ability to watch videos and listen to them at the same time. My argument, and the videos, function on confirmation bias. This is precisely how prayer works for those people, but not you it would seem. Let us try not to equivocate it - which you are apt to doing.

Furthermore, you might find that if you read my posts that I do not disagree with what you have said here.

You ask for substance, but where's yours?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Explicitly distinguish prayer and meditation for me then because it seems you are depending on a very thin line that's based on vagaries.

Well I don't think "sitting there, relaxed" is a very good start. I don't know how much you know about the subject, but so far you sound naive. Tell me what is even the relevance of the "prayer vs. meditation" argument and why you have brought it up repeatedly?

Meditation - Most often involves contemplation, introspection and purported for re-contextualization or resolving of beliefs, higher awareness (and transcending beliefs), relaxation and mental clarity, among other things. Although the psychological examples involve mantras, breathing techniques, postures, physical exercises and watching exercises and sensual rituals, the more pristine and simpler forms can appear to be passive. Actually, within them, there is typically a deep contemplation and watching and/or surrendering of thought systems. Eyes are often closed because the world is not pertinent and may be distracting. However, there are also meditation techniques that involve the world but on a different level than the ordinary, re-contextualizing the significance of daily activities. In some ways this can be a form of prayer but overall meditation is for the betterment of one's consciousness and awareness, typically for integrous spiritual purposes.

Prayer - Prayer is slightly different in that it is generally used to establish intentions for God and is not restricted to inner struggles or purposes, but can be directed outward into the world. Can also be done in group situations and to offer thanks or gratitude toward God, verbally or not. Other prayer forms include poetry/verse, hymns, songs and practical devotional acts (spinning prayer wheels, lighting candles, etc) but these are not exactly meditation. It is also a gesture toward God, oneself and others and helps focus one's intentions for the greater good. The naive think that prayer is used for praying for gain and money, but that is futilely self-centered and egoistic.

In this particular case, prayer is narrowed down to the desire or want for some external object, and further narrowed down by perceptual inference alone. The problem is in the interpretation of the Christianity.com quote, and further ignorance of context through confirmation bias. First of all, all prayers are "answered," but to pick-on the verbal conclusion misses the point of prayer. Just because all prayers are answered doesn't mean put it in the same category as a milk-jug prayer service. The argument actually furthermore fails to justify how the milk-jug prayer is the same, when it is actually very different. A milk-jug does not discretely answer prayers, and this was not explained at all but merely concluded without explanation. E.g. God is the source of the universe and so encompasses all possibility. A milk jug however, is sitting on the cupboard and has no way to answer your prayer unless some magical fantasy is invented. Even so, it is still contrary to praying to God. Also, see my card-game example.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You completely fail to understand my point again. I am not surprised. It seems you like to get ideas in your head about others and just rant on about it.

You might find that, again, if you read my posts, I do not disagree with this. In fact, I said it.

That's confusing - you say I completely fail to understand your point, yet while you agree with and actually "said" what I did. Sorry, but you need to explain; tell me what you think I do not understand and what it is exactly you agree with.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Why do you have to employ a vague and ill-defined concept of karma on something that is much more majestic on its own? Why do you feel the need to inject a fantasy and delusion onto something that is beautiful and perfect?

I have no idea where these notions are coming from, so you have to explain. What do you disagree with about karma and what is "majestic on its own"?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Karma is not a defined concept and relies on delusional and un-intelligent thinking to understand. Yes, intellectuals have difficulty understanding, because you have to be stupid to believe in things that do not have definitions. But I am sure you will take that out of context.

Take it easy, I Googled Karma for you.

If you're going to hold a negative prejudgment about this, I may as well stop posting to you. "...because you have to be stupid..." That's immaturity. Gimme a break.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Also, where the hell did I claim to be God?

You gave me such an impression by implying that everything is the way you think it is and if you can't think of it then it's nonsense. Don't take it too harshly though, it's an emphasis. What is the limitation of logical thinking?

Originally Posted by O'nus

The point is that there is no difference. Even psychological studies (demonstrated by Lee A. Kirkpatrick) can demonstrate that prayer functions on the same basis as a relationship and attachment theory. It is based on its intention for support and consolidation but the methods are nothing but placebo. Hence, there is really no difference between praying to god or a rock, jug of milk, shit, etc. The results are all the same - and I am speaking of the internal and personal.

The results are not actually the same. A jug is in no way comparable to God in that God is infinite, and the jug can merely sit on the cupboard or provide milk for a limited amount of time, for example. What you also ignore is the level to which faith and reason are managed - all of which cannot be proven and does not encompass probability equations in a linear fashion. Neither does the object of attention remain irrelevant. Has anyone reported miracles or the witnessing thereof from the praying to milk-jugs?

How can you prove something like this is a placebo, especially as a generality; especially when the results are intangible?

Originally Posted by O'nus

You would also save us a lot of bandwidth if you did not degrade so many threads into your own meandering nonsense rather than stick to topics and pertinent issues. But here you are again driving another thread into your own philosophy.

That's your opinion. Keep it to yourself.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Maybe you should consider confirmation when you say things like this. Unfortunately, just saying these things does not make them true.

Then what was your point? Answer my question please: With regard to drawing verbal conclusions about prayers and their different responses/outcomes, what's their purpose and utility?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Now let us examine what "praying from the heart" means.

Praying from the heart is praying out of love and compassion. The aim is forgiveness and relinquishment of preciously held belief systems that reject these traits. I got this from The Pathway of the heart, but really it helps to understand most prayers. This goes hand in hand with faith. Praying from the mind is not really how it works, because that brings about personal justification and intellectual criticism that is irrelevant and actually an obstacle to further growth.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Also, it seems you fail to recognize the benefits of simply meditation and how it drastically helps people. People receive just as many benefits from no supernatural influence to supernatural influence. What do you think of that?

L-O-L is what I think of that. I could talk about the benefits of meditation for a lifetime. I don't care if you believe in supernatural influences or not because they are irrelevant in this case (in that they're not a requirement). Besides, God is not supernatural and neither is the nature of Self.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course if I was faced with proof that I did not want to accept, I would argue the definition of proof to.

But that is also the most desperate and pathetic argument you could make.

What argument or proof could be implemented then to prove you wrong?

^ This is something which spiritualists, theists, and all religious alike have a profound failure in facing. Even with me saying this, there will only be a vague response that does not actually have any substance.

I said you can't prove what you said, yet now you're asking me how you can prove me wrong? What are you talking about? I said you can't prove "spiritualists and religious are stupider than nonreligious and atheists...", which you claimed to, and then responded to me again with fluff.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is bull-shit and you know it. The same amount of miracles happen for those that do pray for those that do not. What say you to that?

Miracles happen to everybody because they're commonplace but are not obvious to ordinary perception. Prayer sometimes helps you witness them. Yet, simultaneously, miracles are not quantifiable because they're not intellectual or comprehensible. You pray for a miracle in casual sense, because for a deadly sickness to spontaneously resolve without any medical help or rational justification is quite extraordinary. The proclivity for this is far greater with faith, prayer and intentions for healing and love, etc.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I never pray and I would say I have had "miracles" (statistical in-normalities) - what of me then?

That is meaningless. Miracles are not exclusive to praying, but you're lucky to witness them. Plus, what is an example of one of your "statistical in-normalities"? Things with low chances of occurrences are not miracles, although at first that is one of their apparent characteristics.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Don't be prejudice.

If you had any insight at all you'd know that what I mean is that they are selfish in the sense of how they are conducted. A person sits and thinks to them self. Although some people pray out loud, it is still a selfish act as it is talking your thoughts out loud.

I really hope you get the point.

You ignore the intent of praying for the good of others? You're still generalizing, and not all prayers are spoken; not all prayers are done alone.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am looking further into it by asking you!

I want to know if someone out there really thinks it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of doing good alone and no supernatural influence

or

If it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of a supernatural/spiritual/deity/divine influence.

Be honest now.

Oh right! I am being honest, trust me. First of all, I'd bring up that mature spiritual inclination is not necessarily dogmatic and does not have anything to do with fantasies and supernatural entities.

It is beautiful to seek the good for its own sake, and without glamorizing the ideas or motivations. Nevertheless, when somebody seeks the good that is basically all that matters.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Stop using circular logic - you're smarter than that.

You also completely ignored my point.

I have the respect to acknowledge your points, the least you could do is be mature and give that respect back.

Please re-consider what you quoted and consider that you are being incredibly hypocritical by not taking my question seriously.

I want you to post something substantial and of quality. You seem to generalize by thinking that all spiritual terms are supernatural, is that correct? Where the meaning of God is unified with the meaning of Self and the nature of Reality, is that supernatural? Also, I don't want to go too far off-topic. If that is upsetting to consider, you can pray "to Reality" but you must have reverence and true respect for everything that encompasses.

See Perennial Philosophy.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I do not believe in prayer, Gods, spirits, characteristic entities, magic, divine influence, etc. But yet I still do good and dedicate my life to helping others.

Again, why do you think I do that?

You've made it obvious that you're not interested in anything irrational, improvable or that which is a "bias", etc. Apparently you quickly ascribe these things to spiritual terms. Yet I think you are not willing to see the simplicity and oneness these terms all have with what you already believe. The terms you superficially believe to be supernatural or fantasizing are actually more bare-boned, Self-evident and intrinsic than you realize.

Do you believe in the reality of love? Yes or no. You don't need to rationalize it in some intellectual form with incredible detail and academic excellence, that is not required for my question.

Originally Posted by Unelias

It gets the point across but Im confused on why the person wanted to kill him seeing as Jesus never meant for Christianity to become what it has today. It was twisted and mutilated in to its current form.

Originally Posted by Noogah

1.Why not? Well why so? He may not heal them, but he helps them. God let's nature work the way it was made to work. He doesn't
ignore the prayers, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will heal the lost limb. God still has a perfect plan for their life, and

can see the bigger picture that others cannot see. How can one know that path the amputee may have treaded had he not lost the

limb? Perhaps he would have died.

2. Yes people are starving! Why don't you help them? Seems to me that God has given us PLENTY of money to help starving countries.

Instead of wasting money on the fancy computer you're using right now, why didn't you use it to buy food? Why would God worry

about a Christian's raise when there are starving children in the world? Guys, think about it. That's good stuff right there. The

thousands of dollars that an average person will waste on luxuries COULD be put to good use.

3. All those verses are in the old testament, and were given as laws to the Jews. This was done before Jesus' death, and was the

only way for one to be able to be saved in the future. It's tough, but that's why Jesus had to die to keep us from following so

much. We no longer have to obey those judgments, but should still obey the commandments.

Trivial offenses? They might be trivial in the physical realm, but they sure aren't where God is.

4. What? Those aren't anti-scientific. Yes, God made the world in six days, six thousand years ago....why is that ridiculous?

Yes, a flood covered mount Everest, before it ever even became a mountain. (There is enough water in the oceans alone to cover the

world in a mile of water)

What about Jonah living in the belly of a fish? I don't even recall that God said he lived through that.

The Bible doesn't say God created Adam from a "handful" of dust. You yourself knows that Plants get nutrition from the soil.

Animals get their nutrition from the plants, humans get nutrition from both. Ultimately, all elements required to produce a human

exists in soil, or as the Bible says, the dust of the earth.

5. Yeah, but the Bible's definttion of slavery is a liiiiitttle bit different than ours.






In other words, slaves were treated quite well.

6.Bad things to good people?




7.No evidence? What kind of evidence do you want? Jesus turned water to wine. Exactly what kind of evidence do you expect to find?

A fossilized pot of water? The kind of miracles Jesus performed wouldn't necessarily leave behind evidence. Especially after 2,000

years worth of decay. Bread crumbs tend to mold after that kind of time.

8. Because Jesus isn't a wish granting machine. He isn't a genie that can be summoned, and commanded. He won't appear in the

physical realm until the second coming. Prayer is communion. It's a relationship, and one can become spiritually close to him
through prayer.

9. We don't eat his flesh, or drink his blood.



In other words, bread is symbolic of his body, the drink was symbolic of his blood, and he commanded that when they ate, or drank that they do it in remembrance of him. It wasn't literally his body, or his blood.

10. Because:

a.They are imperfect humans.

b.You can claim to be a Christian without being a Christian

c.You can also be a Christian that makes mistakes



We live in the age of Laodicea church. Half hearted, lukewarm Christians. It's sad indeed.

1. Cancer remissions are considered "Miracles". A cancer remission is not a miracle. It is simply the body fighting back at a malignant parasitical growth. That cannot happen to amputees. That is the simple truth, noogah.

2. If God truly cared, he would help them himself. Does this mean that people who DO help starving african children care more than your "God" does?

3. What kind of loving god would kill homosexuals, impudent teens, women who aren't virgins at birth et cetera? People can make their own choices with their lives. Any RATIONAL person would see that.

4. Yes, those ideals are scientifically irrational because a) The world is MUCH older than 6000 years. Anyone accepting the PROVEN scientific fields of Archeology or Carbon Dating would understand that. And b) The story of Jonah living in a whale for three days is about as credible as Pinnochio. The stomach acid would have dissolved him in that time, easily.

5. Slaves were treated well? Excuse me, but I think it says that they were released after 6 years of service. 6! I don't care how well someone is treated, if they're treated well at all, I would not want to provide labor for anyone against my will for that amount of time.

6. Yes, bad things to good people. There are some people tortured and executed for absolutely no reason at all. And yet, there are multi-millionare criminals at large in the world. What kind of loving, caring god would allow that, hmm?

7. It seems that they haven't found the holy grail yet, have they? Or the cross? Or even the boulder jesus supposedly moved? If you ask me, some of these religious artifacts should last a bit longer than 6000-X years.

8. According to the bible, prayer is based on a "Ask and you shall recieve" motto. Have you yet watched the milk jug video? And, with the proper delusions, you could develop as much a relationship to jesus as you could to Harry Potter. Jesus is simply a fictional character in a book, no matter how many people believe otherwise.

9. And yet, in the bible it is literally said that way. Rewatch the video, see if you change your mind.

10. It is supposed to be a sin to divorce your spouse. If god truly wished for this law to stand, he would've set different standards for the emotion of love, wouldn't he? Unless of course, he doesn't exist. Then it would make perfect sense. The same goes for homosexuals. Why would god create people with different sexual preferences if he did not want them to even exist?



Use reason. Even the ancient greeks understood the power and importance of reason. You'd think after many, many years of introspection modern society would realize the absurdity of religion. It seems that even with hard proof, people are still unable to escape traditional insanity.

Originally Posted by Unelias

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ohh, that's good. He preaches the same ideas that the bible does!

Why does the fellow narrating the video presume to know what I am doing?

He just assumes that I try to make excuses for God when really, I do no such thing. This is really very foolish and another vain attempt at making Christians feel stupid.

"God let's people starve."
No, people let people starve. Or in some cases, people let themselves starve.

"You think that God is performing miracles by curing poisons and cancers."
No, I don't. Who said that I did? Why does this man think that I believe such things? Again, people do these things, not God.

He says that I sit here behind my computer making all kinds of strange excuses as to why God does/does not do certain things, when really there is a simple answer:

My view, in simple terms:

God is an engineer and he created the things we describe and hope to understand using science (definitely not 6000 years ago). He/she/it is something I can't describe, obviously not humanoid or like any creature. Possibly like the Force (damn Star Wars, making me believe in dumb things.) Maybe God is the Big Bang. Whatever. What matters here in this discussion is what God is not. God is not a charity worker and he does not give handouts. The universe is in motion. The mission being fulfilled, God is asleep now. It is dangerous to go alone. Here take this. Period.

"Because the Bible does not make sense then we should not read it."
So then, because "The Cat in the Hat", "Go Dogs Go", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Star Wars", "Frankenstein", and "The Odyssey" all make no sense scientifically speaking, we should disregard them because there is absolutely no lesson or moral value to be learned in them, correct? They teach children and adults alike to believe in mythical creatures, cats that can talk, a woman who would remain faithful for 20 years (yeah as if - see Odyssey), sound waves in outer space, laser guns, laser swords, gong-fu knowing reptiles, etc.

PS: The Bible was written by humans. Not a deity. Therefore it should not be taken literally and those who cannot understand this need not apply. You can pick and choose all of the bad things but I bet if you looked some more you'd find some good stuff as well.

I was typing while listening to the video, but now that I've heard the entire clip, I'm really not impressed. He started out somewhat strong but still in the end committed himself to tossing insults at religious people. Pretty standard stuff. Honestly, I read better arguments on dreamviews, which is sad.

Respect

Firstly, I want you to understand that I am accusing you of digressing the thread into a complete irrelevancy based upon your own philosophies. It takes away from the thread and you add condescending remarks to it. Just because skeptics question prayer and spirituality does not mean that they are stupider than you. Consider the possibility that you are wrong. No matter how right it may seem to you.

Spoiler for A:

O'nus, I don't mean to come across as disrespectful at all. I don't see what you have to get so defensive and offended about. If anything you've made more degenerative comments than I have. Settle down or something, have a Kit Kat. This stuff is not the easiest to understand, so be patient.

Substance

Originally Posted by really

You ask for substance, but where's yours?

What you have provided:
- Subjective and relative definitions of spirituality, meditation, and prayer with no support, evidence, or justification.

What I have provided:
- Justifiable arguments and valid objections to the functionality of prayer.

It must be noted that I think you are ignoring the fact that I fully acknowledge the power of positive psychology, placebo, and meditation. However, I do not think there is any need to implement supernatural or anything further out of the context.

I must note to you that you are consistently using circular logic. You assume that spirituality exists and then argue from that standpoint. You are not defining or justifying the existance of God, spirits, or anything else for that matter.

So when it comes to substance, you must really look at yourself.

Semantics

While there seems to be a distinct difference between prayer and meditation, it is a central debate we are having right now.

However, you keep saying that God is not supernatural, and debating with my use over the terms of your God and divine influence, etc.

I am trying to use the most vague and broad terms to relate to you and you consistently change the context of the words I am using. You know what I am trying to convey to you; we both understand that your God is intended as an all encompassing perceiver and influence, etc.

Considering that the idea of Gods existence is the premise to all of your circular logic, I would love it if you tried to correct me and used definitive terms or even proved it.

But then again, I have no confidence that you can provide anything other than subjective arguments; and you lack the ability to see how that is a problem.

Prayer v Meditation

Firstly, if you can accept what I am saying about the truth in these two things, than we can continue. The fact of the matter is that, physiologically speaking, these two things are exactly the same. Breathing rates, blood pressure, all drop and the person relaxes.

If spirituality or God makes prayer/meditation more potent, then ought there be a difference when an Atheist meditates?

I know that you would most likely induce an answer that begs the question here, (eg. "God is everything, so you just don't realize that it is happening to you anyway") but this does not make it valid. In fact, it invalidates it because of its unfalsifiability.

Furthermore, you can still meditate and think of others. I do it all the time. In fact, I often tell people that I need time to think to myself about how I can help them. This is because I feel that, in my meditative state, I am most able to be empathetic and able to relay my thoughts about that person. I try to go into the most phenomenological state possible and it works very effectively for me.

However, there is no need for a supernatural influence.

Spoiler for B:

Meditation - Most often involves contemplation, introspection and purported for re-contextualization or resolving of beliefs, higher awareness (and transcending beliefs), relaxation and mental clarity, among other things. Although the psychological examples involve mantras, breathing techniques, postures, physical exercises and watching exercises and sensual rituals, the more pristine and simpler forms can appear to be passive. Actually, within them, there is typically a deep contemplation and watching and/or surrendering of thought systems. Eyes are often closed because the world is not pertinent and may be distracting. However, there are also meditation techniques that involve the world but on a different level than the ordinary, re-contextualizing the significance of daily activities. In some ways this can be a form of prayer but overall meditation is for the betterment of one's consciousness and awareness, typically for integrous spiritual purposes.

Prayer - Prayer is slightly different in that it is generally used to establish intentions for God and is not restricted to inner struggles or purposes, but can be directed outward into the world. Can also be done in group situations and to offer thanks or gratitude toward God, verbally or not. Other prayer forms include poetry/verse, hymns, songs and practical devotional acts (spinning prayer wheels, lighting candles, etc) but these are not exactly meditation. It is also a gesture toward God, oneself and others and helps focus one's intentions for the greater good. The naive think that prayer is used for praying for gain and money, but that is futilely self-centered and egoistic.

Your Confusion

You may find that I am constantly saying, "You are missing my point" or "ranting on". This is because I see that you have a tendency to make the wrong assumptions about my expressions (eg. meditation v prayer). Essentially, the only thing we disagree upon is that involvement of God or spirituality. Everything else I agree with (it's benefits and intents).

I should actually emphasize that the major difference between you and I is that I see absolutely no difference between prayer and meditation; even physiological evidence can support that. You cannot give any evidence otherwise because you rely on circular logic (eg. "God is everywhere and involved in everything; it is simply a matter of perceiving it") - which is invalid and illogical.

Your best hope is to argue the foundations of logic and if you do, then we give rise to anything illogical.

Majesty

I have no idea where these notions are coming from, so you have to explain. What do you disagree with about karma and what is "majestic on its own"?

Let us stick with prayer and meditation.

Imagine for a moment that there are two views:
1) Meditation/Prayer is functioned by God and allows all these wonderful epiphanies to occur
or
2) Meditation/Prayer is functioned by individuals on their own and all the wonderful epiphanies occur on their own - autonomously.

I would like to ask which one sounds more amazing, but our answers are obviously bias, so let me elaborate. Is it more amazing that there's a supernatural influence on the epiphanies and wondrous things that happen in your life? Or is it more inspiring to know how much control and wonderful abilities you have on your own? You are the ultimate God of your own consciousness - not something else.

The results are not actually the same. A jug is in no way comparable to God in that God is infinite, and the jug can merely sit on the cupboard or provide milk for a limited amount of time, for example. What you also ignore is the level to which faith and reason are managed - all of which cannot be proven and does not encompass probability equations in a linear fashion. Neither does the object of attention remain irrelevant. Has anyone reported miracles or the witnessing thereof from the praying to milk-jugs?

How can you prove something like this is a placebo, especially as a generality; especially when the results are intangible?

You seem to fail to see the point. I will try to explicitly state it.

A) Prayer and meditation both have the same physiological and psychological effects.
+ A1) This is proven in the fact of slow breathing, heart rate, and attachment theory.
+ A2) This is also true as both have the same fundamental purposes.
B) If there is any differene, it ought to be between those that pray to a God and those that pray to themselves
C) There is no difference between those that pray to a God and thoes that pray to themselves
Thus,
- Prayer is a placebo and there is no difference between it and meditation

If you want scientific journals representing the fact that there is no difference, simply request it. But by no means think that I am not confident in calling up an army of journals; too many people think that asking such will cause me to be lazy and hopefully shut the argument down - that would not be the case, so do not make the mistake of thinking that I am bluffing.

I would not believe something unless I have given it careful thought and research. I expect others to do the same.

Praying from the heart is praying out of love and compassion. The aim is forgiveness and relinquishment of preciously held belief systems that reject these traits. I got this from The Pathway of the heart, but really it helps to understand most prayers. This goes hand in hand with faith. Praying from the mind is not really how it works, because that brings about personal justification and intellectual criticism that is irrelevant and actually an obstacle to further growth.

I have noticed that a lot of bias people use this "from the heart" argument but it's really just a fancy proverbial argument that means nothing more than "if you were bias..".

How is "praying from the heart" any different than "praying with a bias"? Also, is this not the very definition of placebo?

L-O-L is what I think of that. I could talk about the benefits of meditation for a lifetime. I don't care if you believe in supernatural influences or not because they are irrelevant in this case (in that they're not a requirement). Besides, God is not supernatural and neither is the nature of Self.

You again fail to see the point here.

I still agree with all the benefits - and there are a great many. However, there is absolutely no need (nor proof or justification other than tautological or circular logic) that a God needs to be involved.

Originally Posted by Me

I want to know if someone out there really thinks it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of doing good alone and no supernatural influence

or

If it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of a supernatural/spiritual/deity/divine influence.

You did not answer my question here. You simply said, "As long as they are doing good, it is good" but could you not say that it is better to do good for the sake of doing good than doing good for the sake of being told to? Or out of obligation?

Which is "more altruisitc"; a police officer saving a mans life, or a stranger saving a mans life?

Or, more pertinent; a man saving another man becaues he thinks God will reward him somehow or bring him closer to him. Or a man saving a man because he just cares about the man.

Again, I ask you, why do you think I dedicate my life to helping people if I do not share a shred of beliefs you have in spirituality and God and yet still "do good" for others?

There's nothing third-party or supernatural about existence itself. It belongs to God, so we pray to God. They are one and the same.

You also still dodged this; you are using circular logic here. In order to believe or even begin to know that God is within your prayers, you must already believe so.

I know you are smart - how are you unable to see the circular logic you are relying so heavily upon?

Are you really going to desperately argue me that I simply misunderstand and think too much over the idea of God being "revealed" to me once I stop thinking? Do you not see the problem in this?


Intelligence and Spirituality

You said yourself:

I think we should consider that prayers are effective, however not within an intellectual understanding. Understandably, this is difficult for most intellectuals

You have said this often too. What is this implying? That you ought to give no thought to your beliefs in order to believe them?

Of course, you hold that it is in giving in and being able to see the world for what is given that gives rise to transcendental reasoning.

However, this is the key to delusion. If you do not question even your own cognizance, then you allow yourself to naively believe many things. Imagine if you never questioned yourself or your environment. Imagine if you just willfully believed all things you were told. Where would you be? You would be the most gullible and manipulable person about.

And this is why it is easy to send religious people to do monotonous tasks and contorl them as a society. It is without a doubt that Christianity and almost all religions have a heavy political interest. Furthermore, it deters thinking. If someone has already done all the questioning and thinking for you and you question it, you will most likely be told, "It is just this way; believe it or leave". What choice does a person have if that is their family or society?

Furthermore, what limitations is made on a person if their room for skepticism is bound? If you are not allowed to be skeptical, then what can that person truly learn?

You gave me such an impression by implying that everything is the way you think it is and if you can't think of it then it's nonsense. Don't take it too harshly though, it's an emphasis. What is the limitation of logical thinking?

This is a great illustration to your gross misunderstanding of me. I have clearly stated many times that I am open to many things. I simply need to have a good reason to. That does not mean systematically and empirical justifications; just a good reason. You have your reasons, I would like to think I have the same and that, given yours, I would have the same to. Unfortunately, you do not give any good reasons other than circular logic.

A delusional person cannot convince another person of their delusions is real if they are not real.

I think you are delusional.

You cannot prove me wrong - thus, I am right.

I hope you see the point in this. I would never really rely my argument based on that reasoning, but what could you say to it? It is a stupid argument - and yet here you are using the exact samething.

Furthermore, you ask the limitation of logical-thinking;

I am not sure what you mean by that. What are limits? Maybe you ought to consider the link on my signature "Experience and it's Unreliable..." to see my likely response.

Not Believing in God = More Intelligent

Evidence speaks for itself;

Spoiler for Evidence:

There are more sources upon request. More specifically, the more education, the more Atheist one becomes.

I suspect that, in desperation of no other argument, you would debate the semantics of "intelligence" in which I ask, how would you define it? It is based on the ideal of answering surveys and questions and comparing the to others of the same physical age. IQ tests are an interesting thing to debate, but it is mostly agreed upon that comparing one to others is the best measure for normality and expected intelligence (eg. a 6 year old ought not to be expected to understand calculus, but if he did, it would be out of the norm and considered "very intellectual").

I really hope that nips it in the butt.

Notice that I am providing, not only substance, but actual evidence for my arguments.

Where are yours? Must we review hypocrisy?

Thusly..

You've made it obvious that you're not interested in anything irrational, improvable or that which is a "bias", etc. Apparently you quickly ascribe these things to spiritual terms. Yet I think you are not willing to see the simplicity and oneness these terms all have with what you already believe. The terms you superficially believe to be supernatural or fantasizing are actually more bare-boned, Self-evident and intrinsic than you realize.

Do you believe in the reality of love? Yes or no. You don't need to rationalize it in some intellectual form with incredible detail and academic excellence, that is not required for my question.

Firstly, just because there is a perennial philosohy or common theme amongst things, does not mean that all things are one and that all things are essentially meaningless to question.

There has been leaps and bounds in knowledge and what we have learned. Imagine telling the ancients about the far galaxies, chemistry, string theory, etc. Sure, they have had thoughts about similar concepts and came close to idolising it - and that demonstrates our strong ability to think! However, it is also amazing to embrace how fragile and profound our tangible physical world is that does not involved any spiritual or unity of things. It is simply a vast story that we do not fully know yet. Don't ignore that.

I am learning a lot everyday and it is not from naive gullibility but doubt and skepticism. When I doubt things, I research it and question it. Sifting through the nonsense of things can actually reveal the truth in many others. Questioning my own cognition has taught me leap years of things about the way humans think.
How do you think the scientific endeavour functions; on the idea that all things are subjectively truthful in the right perception, or to doubt things and question their structure? Remember, science and logic is applicable to all things.

I do not think you give enough credit to Science.

Perhaps Noetic Science is more of your field. I humbly suggest you look it up. I think you'd much enjoy it considering your paradigm.

Also, I respectfully admit to you that I enjoy your debates as they provide my own venture into doubt;

But not doubt of you, doubt of myself. You make me doubt myself and that is why I enjoy trying to debate you because if I am wrong about something, then I have learned something.

My hope is to do the same in turn for you; but I sense a great resistance. I hope you see how.

~

Holy crap. I think that settles it. There is no god, only O'nus.

Sorry about the big post. Next time I will cut it down a lot!

Although I am not intending to sound condescending, I have to point out that the human mind sometimes has the tendency to over-complicate the simplest of matters. Such a simple argument has grown into a huge game of information, rather than a simple question for truth. I am not here to prove to you what I believe and cite my every conclusion. Take a wild paradigm shift. We are talking about what is experiential, not what is provable. If you come here to ignore everything that is not provable, this isn't going to be much help. Let me point out why this is different.

O'nus, I don't expect this to be new to you because we have been in so many similar arguments together. Nevertheless, let me elaborate. The spiritual world is the world of experience. It is firm within the subjective domain. It is based in context of experience rather than content, hence it does never change. Essentially, this is why it is the Absolute Truth, for that is entirely experiential as subjective reality through which any knowledge or experience whatsoever is known. The spiritual, subjective context is beyond all things, thoughts, ideas, terms, proofs, concepts, measurements, lack, limit and description. Remember, the context does not concern imaginings, fantasies, objects or special academic papers. Reality was here to mankind without any explanation, but no explanation is truly needed.

Through revelation and teachings/scriptures (etc.), the Self-Realized throughout history, to this day, all tell us that this is essentially the Divine Reality. Call it Bliss, God, Cosmos, Buddha, Mind, No-Mind, Self, Heaven, Enlightenment, Pure Consciousness or Reality. It is in no way supernatural or imaginary, though the terminology is sometimes confused as such upon brief examination or familiarity. Do not give this a brief examination, trust me. A brief examination may also see this as circular and unfalsifiable. Do not try to prove it, but realize how you can see it as true without proof. You'll find you don't have to change anything but your scope of awareness. Foreseeing the argument ahead, I'd ask if you know the importance of spiritual awareness, because it is out of awareness that Reality exists. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Respect
Firstly, I want you to understand that I am accusing you of digressing the thread into a complete irrelevancy based upon your own philosophies. It takes away from the thread and you add condescending remarks to it. Just because skeptics question prayer and spirituality does not mean that they are stupider than you. Consider the possibility that you are wrong. No matter how right it may seem to you.

The digression of this thread through "my own philosophy" is entirely your own opinion. To think this is exclusively my own philosophy implies you don't even read my posts. If you mean I simply post in threads with my own view, you've ignored the purpose of a forum; picking me out through your own relative annoyance. Respect is something I think you need to have, more than anyone else in this discussion. You don't see me telling you or anyone else to "get out" with your degrading ideas, so again: Keep it to yourself.

Do I also have to repeat that disrespect is not my intention? Where did I say skeptics are stupid? Don't put words in my mouth. Realize that I am arguing a point as anybody else would. If you can't directly quote my arrogant insults, I simply didn't say any. I don't know if you're paranoid or not, but I have no intention to imply these things either!

Originally Posted by O'nus

Substance

What you have provided:
- Subjective and relative definitions of spirituality, meditation, and prayer with no support, evidence, or justification.

What I have provided:
- Justifiable arguments and valid objections to the functionality of prayer.

It must be noted that I think you are ignoring the fact that I fully acknowledge the power of positive psychology, placebo, and meditation. However, I do not think there is any need to implement supernatural or anything further out of the context.

I must note to you that you are consistently using circular logic. You assume that spirituality exists and then argue from that standpoint. You are not defining or justifying the existance of God, spirits, or anything else for that matter.

So when it comes to substance, you must really look at yourself.

This just happens to dodge my question. If I ask for substance, it also means I don't see any solid ground behind your views - of which just happens to include your above stance as well. You complain to me, but don't expect me to understand what you're talking about without directly referring to the source of the problem. I.e. please make direct quotes instead of broad, over-simplified, generalizations.

Also, about my seeming relative, circular logic. This is not the case. If you understand the Perennial Philosophy, you understand the basics of what cannot be proven. Yet this is not relative at all. Neither are my descriptions of prayer and meditation; I think you're just trying to be difficult rather than actually consider where I am coming from.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Semantics
While there seems to be a distinct difference between prayer and meditation, it is a central debate we are having right now.

However, you keep saying that God is not supernatural, and debating with my use over the terms of your God and divine influence, etc.

I am trying to use the most vague and broad terms to relate to you and you consistently change the context of the words I am using. You know what I am trying to convey to you; we both understand that your God is intended as an all encompassing perceiver and influence, etc.

Please don't assume I know or don't know what you're talking about. I don't change the context of your words, but actually I am asking you what it is the context of your words. What is your meaning of supernatural and why is it important? In what way does this relate to what I have said? So far I think you see supernatural as something that is unnecessarily applied, external and unnatural. But that has been misapplied to the nature of God, which I argue is a metaphor and attributed reference to Pure Consciousness (see third paragraph also), if you will.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Prayer v Meditation

Firstly, if you can accept what I am saying about the truth in these two things, than we can continue. The fact of the matter is that, physiologically speaking, these two things are exactly the same. Breathing rates, blood pressure, all drop and the person relaxes.

Thanks for being more specific, but unfortunately it is now late in the argument and your position still remains weak. I still don't know why you're specifically arguing about this. Physiologically speaking, the amount of endorphins that are released during prayer and meditation can be quite different. Often meditation states inspire the so-called Kundalini energy to flourish, through which a significant amount of endorphins are released, leading to increased healing. This is actually one of the factors that contribute to spiritual awakenings, and you can check out Gopi Krishna for more explicit detail in this.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If spirituality or God makes prayer/meditation more potent, then ought there be a difference when an Atheist meditates?

Yes because an Atheist does not meditate for the purpose of God, and if he/she does, they are unknowingly a Theist. If a meditating Atheist comes to experience death, followed by Absolute Peace, he has come to know God, but perhaps he was motivated by some other term or phrase, such as "the search for my true Self" However, they actually mean the same thing, and upon experience that is confirmed beyond doubt. The intentionality and purpose behind the meditation is important because it also motivates the degree to which the meditation is handed over to a higher power. However, all this depends on the kind of meditation. In this example it is the watching/surrendering of thought systems or attachment thereof.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Furthermore, you can still meditate and think of others. I do it all the time. In fact, I often tell people that I need time to think to myself about how I can help them. This is because I feel that, in my meditative state, I am most able to be empathetic and able to relay my thoughts about that person. I try to go into the most phenomenological state possible and it works very effectively for me.

Thinking to yourself is in not meditating. People think to themselves all the time. Do I really need to justify that? Even if you do meditate for others, you begin by searching inside yourself. But perhaps you should elaborate on the process of this meditation. Praying often is more direct and without personal activity or drawing own conclusions. Also remember the variety of prayers and meditations that are distinguishable from each other, as I had mentioned. No need to ignore that.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Majesty

Let us stick with prayer and meditation.

Imagine for a moment that there are two views:
1) Meditation/Prayer is functioned by God and allows all these wonderful epiphanies to occur
or
2) Meditation/Prayer is functioned by individuals on their own and all the wonderful epiphanies occur on their own - autonomously.

I would like to ask which one sounds more amazing, but our answers are obviously bias, so let me elaborate. Is it more amazing that there's a supernatural influence on the epiphanies and wondrous things that happen in your life? Or is it more inspiring to know how much control and wonderful abilities you have on your own? You are the ultimate God of your own consciousness - not something else.

Whether or not something is more amazing is a matter of opinion and experience. What you mean is what is intrinsically more beautiful, but you assume that God is supernatural, invented or somehow external. The more you understand God, the more you understand your Self in Truth (visa versa), and you'd eventually find them as One and the same. However, this does not become a "better than" concept and it's not to be confused with egotistically inflated images and grandiosity. This is simplified below:

1) Position to give up to God; Meditation dedicated to higher Power.
2) Position to claim authorship via ego; Meditation exists within causal/dualistic system. If something happens autonomously of its own, it has nothing to do with you and our own personal abilities. It is impersonal.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You seem to fail to see the point. I will try to explicitly state it.

A) Prayer and meditation both have the same physiological and psychological effects.
+ A1) This is proven in the fact of slow breathing, heart rate, and attachment theory.
+ A2) This is also true as both have the same fundamental purposes.
B) If there is any differene, it ought to be between those that pray to a God and those that pray to themselves
C) There is no difference between those that pray to a God and thoes that pray to themselves
Thus,
- Prayer is a placebo and there is no difference between it and meditation

A1) This is superficial and isn't specific enough to what is being examined. I can have low breathing and heart rate while watching TV, but it has no where near the same psychological or physiological effects as prayer; especially meditation. There are many other variables that are not considered, such as psychological effects on others who are the object/subject of one's prayer and the prevailing conditions of awareness, which may or may not persist. This is not provable, but it is verifiable by experience - hence the authority of those Avatars and spiritual masters/teachers.
A2) Define the fundamental purpose.
B/C) These are also superficial because they're limited to the externalized definition of the prayer's object/subject and not the intention that follows. Nevertheless, how exactly is the proof of indifference justified? It is not suitable proof if it is derived from categories of outcomes or apparent characteristics alone.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you want scientific journals representing the fact that there is no difference, simply request it. But by no means think that I am not confident in calling up an army of journals; too many people think that asking such will cause me to be lazy and hopefully shut the argument down - that would not be the case, so do not make the mistake of thinking that I am bluffing.

Tell me what you think is important and what matters to the discussion. I do not wish to read an army of journals for something ridiculously simple, and besides, I value quality over quantity.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have noticed that a lot of bias people use this "from the heart" argument but it's really just a fancy proverbial argument that means nothing more than "if you were bias..".

How is "praying from the heart" any different than "praying with a bias"? Also, is this not the very definition of placebo?

Do I have to tell you the difference between praying out of compassion and praying out of selfishness? Please consider this for a moment, slow down a little.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I still agree with all the benefits - and there are a great many. However, there is absolutely no need (nor proof or justification other than tautological or circular logic) that a God needs to be involved.

There is absolutely no reason that God needs be involved because you're not seeking God, simple enough? Besides, like I said, it's not supernatural. It depends upon your intent, and that also defines the outcomes that can be proven or not. Ask God when all else fails, or if all has already failed. Otherwise, you're probably playing the waiting game, which does not recognize paradigm or own limitations.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You did not answer my question here. You simply said, "As long as they are doing good, it is good" but could you not say that it is better to do good for the sake of doing good than doing good for the sake of being told to? Or out of obligation?

Which is "more altruisitc"; a police officer saving a mans life, or a stranger saving a mans life?

Or, more pertinent; a man saving another man becaues he thinks God will reward him somehow or bring him closer to him. Or a man saving a man because he just cares about the man.

This is overcomplicated. Do you know the saying: "God is Love"? If you save someone out of care, love or for God there is no difference. The only difference is your intellectual position with God. And yes, you'd see that I did say it is better to do good for its own sake, if you read my post.

As for your altruism question, I don't know what you're getting at.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Again, I ask you, why do you think I dedicate my life to helping people if I do not share a shred of beliefs you have in spirituality and God and yet still "do good" for others?

Again, I answer you, because you do not wish to include anything redundant, bias, self-fulfilling, improvable - all of which you categorize God and spirituality. I see you are close to believing in God, although you try to justify otherwise through intellectualizing things out of your academic orientation. Nothing wrong with that, however there are limitations you may be unaware of. Just pointing it out. Perhaps, to some extent, you fear giving up your life for a belief set that merely seems to be contradictory to your own.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Intelligence and Spirituality

You have said this often too. What is this implying? That you ought to give no thought to your beliefs in order to believe them?

By not being intellectual, I don't mean you have to be dumb or not be intelligent! You ought to give no thought to support those beliefs that see that thoughts are fruitless. This is one method.

What I mean is again; limitation of paradigm. Why do we need to intellectualize the obvious? Is the Truth devoid of concepts? This goes back to the core of what I am saying, again straying slightly off topic into the overall philosophy.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you really going to desperately argue me that I simply misunderstand and think too much over the idea of God being "revealed" to me once I stop thinking? Do you not see the problem in this?

[...]

However, this is the key to delusion. If you do not question even your own cognizance, then you allow yourself to naively believe many things. Imagine if you never questioned yourself or your environment. Imagine if you just willfully believed all things you were told. Where would you be? You would be the most gullible and manipulable person about.

This is not the key to delusion. Most people who are spiritually inclined are always questioning themselves and their environment, if not they have already long ago. The world, its thoughts and its science have become redundant and actually delusional when it comes so seeking something greater. Some may see this as uncomfortably "deep." It is the depth of paradigm that needs to be considered, and not as to be mistakenly categorized with superfluous fantasies. This does not negate science and reason, but transcends it. Remember, the context is the key here. What can worldly science not provide? The answers to the Absolute.

Originally Posted by O'nus

And this is why it is easy to send religious people to do monotonous tasks and contorl them as a society. It is without a doubt that Christianity and almost all religions have a heavy political interest. Furthermore, it deters thinking. If someone has already done all the questioning and thinking for you and you question it, you will most likely be told, "It is just this way; believe it or leave". What choice does a person have if that is their family or society?

Furthermore, what limitations is made on a person if their room for skepticism is bound? If you are not allowed to be skeptical, then what can that person truly learn?

Sure, skepticism is healthy in some sense, but you must see its limitations. A humble skeptic does not make negative prejudgments, for one thing. A humble skeptic is critical but has an open, wise mind.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Furthermore, you ask the limitation of logical-thinking;

I am not sure what you mean by that. What are limits?

Limits of thinking are where thinking and logic becomes useless, inaccurate, misleading and false, etc. So wherefrom does this arise from thinking itself, then? It arises where the mind wishes to discern what is true from what is false. By its naturally dualistic structure, it has no capacity to do this and so must resort to concepts and ideas.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Not Believing in God = More Intelligent

Evidence speaks for itself;

Spoiler for Evidence:

There are more sources upon request. More specifically, the more education, the more Atheist one becomes.

I wouldn't call this evidence, I'd call it a (vague) chart. I can go ahead and make such a chart with Excel right now. If you're going to post these images, source them properly and make sure they're a good enough resolution/size so others can read it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Thusly..

Firstly, just because there is a perennial philosohy or common theme amongst things, does not mean that all things are one and that all things are essentially meaningless to question.

That's not what I meant by Perennial Philosophy. I posted it for some extra insight. Is a universal truth something I can prove?

Originally Posted by O'nus

How do you think the scientific endeavour functions; on the idea that all things are subjectively truthful in the right perception, or to doubt things and question their structure? Remember, science and logic is applicable to all things.

It is naive to think science is applicable to all things, but you may mean all material (objective) "things". Science is useful in the world to form theories and experiments, to discover facts and draw conclusions. In the world of information and numbers, science is essential. However, ordinary science has no place in the spiritual paradigm, the subjective paradigm as there is no way to comprehend experience as it is, instead of as it is conceptualized. The Self-evident requires no proof, only awareness - and awareness is not susceptible to science's domain.

Just a little bitat this point.

Originally Posted by really

We are talking about what is experiential, not what is provable. If you come here to ignore everything that is not provable, this isn't going to be much help. Let me point out why this is different.

This is something very important to note and I will likely bring it up again.

O'nus, I don't expect this to be new to you because we have been in so many similar arguments together. Nevertheless, let me elaborate. The spiritual world is the world of experience. It is firm within the subjective domain. It is based in context of experience rather than content, hence it does never change. Essentially, this is why it is the Absolute Truth, for that is entirely experiential as subjective reality through which any knowledge or experience whatsoever is known. The spiritual, subjective context is beyond all things, thoughts, ideas, terms, proofs, concepts, measurements, lack, limit and description. Remember, the context does not concern imaginings, fantasies, objects or special academic papers. Reality was here to mankind without any explanation, but no explanation is truly needed.

Obviously this is digressive but let us explore it anyway.

I completely agree that spirituality is most definitely a personal and relative matter.

Do you know how many people in the lunatic asylum believe that they are God? Have you ever heard Charles Manson speak about the spirits within us all?

These people can also not be proven wrong. But this does not mean that they are right or in anyway more truthful because of that.

It is simply an experience and nothing is more convincing to a human being than experiencing something. You must realize how easily deluded people can be based on that very fundamental fact. I do not think we need to debate the power of experience.

Do not give this a brief examination, trust me. A brief examination may also see this as circular and unfalsifiable. Do not try to prove it, but realize how you can see it as true without proof. You'll find you don't have to change anything but your scope of awareness. Foreseeing the argument ahead, I'd ask if you know the importance of spiritual awareness, because it is out of awareness that Reality exists. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Believe me, I have thoroughly explored many perspectives and continue to do so.

The best way to answer this is to ask you; what importance can be found in spirituality that cannot be found in existentialism?

This just happens to dodge my question. If I ask for substance, it also means I don't see any solid ground behind your views - of which just happens to include your above stance as well. You complain to me, but don't expect me to understand what you're talking about without directly referring to the source of the problem. I.e. please make direct quotes instead of broad, over-simplified, generalizations.

Obviously the idea of substance in arguments is central to our paradigm differences. With that said, I won't bring it up again but it is a result of the rest of our debate. "Substance" is very relative to what you view as qualified reasoning, etc. (even this sentence is debatable, I know.. but I think you see where I am going).

Also, about my seeming relative, circular logic. This is not the case. If you understand the Perennial Philosophy, you understand the basics of what cannot be proven. Yet this is not relative at all. Neither are my descriptions of prayer and meditation; I think you're just trying to be difficult rather than actually consider where I am coming from.

I think you and I actually agree on a lot - I hope you see that. The problem is really in our significant difference in the involvement of "God" which may even just be semantics.

Let that sit for a moment and I'll continue on your next comments.

What is your meaning of supernatural and why is it important? In what way does this relate to what I have said? So far I think you see supernatural as something that is unnecessarily applied, external and unnatural. But that has been misapplied to the nature of God, which I argue is a metaphor and attributed reference to Pure Consciousness (see third paragraph also), if you will.

See, this is what makes me think this is a semantics debate in disguise.

It seems to me that what you described as God is what I may describe at Logos. The way of things, the trends, or, as the great Carl Jung ascribed, Zeitgeist. This is the spiritual or intellectual perspective of an epoch. Over time, it is the Zeitgeist of mankind (the perennial philosophy) as an average question.

I wonder if you agree..? I suspect the terms may need re-defined.

Physiologically speaking, the amount of endorphins that are released during prayer and meditation can be quite different. Often meditation states inspire the so-called Kundalini energy to flourish, through which a significant amount of endorphins are released, leading to increased healing. This is actually one of the factors that contribute to spiritual awakenings, and you can check out Gopi Krishna for more explicit detail in this.

This is simply wrong. The amount of physiological activity is the same.

You are speaking of certain cases and, of course, spiritual cases of healing and epiphanies during meditation are much more glorified than those without spiritual context.

Do you really need to hear about the amount of healing that happens to people without any prayer but just sitting in a hospital bed and thinking?

There is no statistical difference between spiritual healing and natural healing.

If you can really prove otherwise (because this is something you can prove) then please show. I do not mean the methods of healing, just the record cases. Then, let us compare them to normal ones.

This has been done often enough and I know that I could pull up the records. But, I do not want to be bias, so I want to see you do so. I want to know if it is even possible.

Yes because an Atheist does not meditate for the purpose of God, and if he/she does, they are unknowingly a Theist. If a meditating Atheist comes to experience death, followed by Absolute Peace, he has come to know God, but perhaps he was motivated by some other term or phrase, such as "the search for my true Self" However, they actually mean the same thing, and upon experience that is confirmed beyond doubt. The intentionality and purpose behind the meditation is important because it also motivates the degree to which the meditation is handed over to a higher power. However, all this depends on the kind of meditation. In this example it is the watching/surrendering of thought systems or attachment thereof.

What? So I am a Theist without even knowing it? That does not even make sense. You are really being generous with the definition of "God".

This is yet another reason why I suspect semantics because, by your logic here, everyone believes in God and just does not realize it. At least, your definition of God (which is not very well defined yet).

Perhaps you could explicitly define God to help clarify things.

1) Position to give up to God; Meditation dedicated to higher Power.
2) Position to claim authorship via ego; Meditation exists within causal/dualistic system. If something happens autonomously of its own, it has nothing to do with you and our own personal abilities. It is impersonal.

What of those that are still open to the idea of God but have not experienced enough reason?

A1) This is superficial and isn't specific enough to what is being examined. I can have low breathing and heart rate while watching TV, but it has no where near the same psychological or physiological effects as prayer; especially meditation.

Wrong; the breathing during TV is nothing relatively close to this slow breathing.

How about yoga? I can sit and slow breathe during yoga and, believe it or not, it has the same dramatic effects as the most powerful "praying" techniques.

Technically, yoga is overall healthier than meditation/prayer.

There are many other variables that are not considered, such as psychological effects on others who are the object/subject of one's prayer and the prevailing conditions of awareness, which may or may not persist. This is not provable, but it is verifiable by experience - hence the authority of those Avatars and spiritual masters/teachers.

I mentioned Attachment theory and you ignored it. Prayer functions on attachment and the psychology of relationships to a "God". The same methods in which one prays to God are parallel to those ways in which we would speak to our parents (or care-giver).

Do I have to tell you the difference between praying out of compassion and praying out of selfishness? Please consider this for a moment, slow down a little.

You're equivocating the point. You said that prayers from the heart are much more potent for the individual - I said why - you said because they are from the heart - and I asked how is this not any different than confirmation bias? Then you reply with this?

Equivocation in it's finest.

Ask God when all else fails, or if all has already failed. Otherwise, you're probably playing the waiting game, which does not recognize paradigm or own limitations.

Why? I will never need to speak to God. So I don't understand what you mean by this.

This is overcomplicated. Do you know the saying: "God is Love"? If you save someone out of care, love or for God there is no difference. The only difference is your intellectual position with God. And yes, you'd see that I did say it is better to do good for its own sake, if you read my post.

This is just unreasonable. Love is love. Do not muddle things up like that.

Do you see what I mean about ruining the majesty of things?

Let us take Romeo and Juliet. They love each other. This is because of;
A) God
or
B) because they love each other

One takes away the autonomy and real meaning of it (they are not choosing to love each other) whereas the other is giving ownership to their emotions.

Why do you ruin this?

I see you are close to believing in God, although you try to justify otherwise through intellectualizing things out of your academic orientation. Nothing wrong with that, however there are limitations you may be unaware of. Just pointing it out. Perhaps, to some extent, you fear giving up your life for a belief set that merely seems to be contradictory to your own.

This is highly relative to your semantic definition of God.

If you are willing to give one.

By not being intellectual, I don't mean you have to be dumb or not be intelligent! You ought to give no thought to support those beliefs that see that thoughts are fruitless. This is one method.

In the words of Socrates, "All that I know, is that I know nothing" it is also important that he was considered the smartest person in the world because others claimed to know.

This is not the key to delusion. Most people who are spiritually inclined are always questioning themselves and their environment, if not they have already long ago. The world, its thoughts and its science have become redundant and actually delusional when it comes so seeking something greater. Some may see this as uncomfortably "deep." It is the depth of paradigm that needs to be considered, and not as to be mistakenly categorized with superfluous fantasies. This does not negate science and reason, but transcends it. Remember, the context is the key here. What can worldly science not provide? The answers to the Absolute.

Science can provide for anything and everything. You think spirituality seems to deep, I think Existentialism seem to frightening to you. As an Atheist Humanist Existentialist, I can apply science and logic to literally anything. Functioning on skepticism, it is also adaptable.

Tell me.. how is spiritualism adaptable to change?

Sure, skepticism is healthy in some sense, but you must see its limitations. A humble skeptic does not make negative prejudgments, for one thing. A humble skeptic is critical but has an open, wise mind.

Of course - how am I not doing this? If I am, I would like to know as it contradicts how I want to live.

I wouldn't call this evidence, I'd call it a (vague) chart. I can go ahead and make such a chart with Excel right now. If you're going to post these images, source them properly and make sure they're a good enough resolution/size so others can read it.

Ugh, I will make a thread for it later. Obviously it requires elaboration as it is difficult to swallow. I am simply lazy at the moment.

It is naive to think science is applicable to all things, but you may mean all material (objective) "things". Science is useful in the world to form theories and experiments, to discover facts and draw conclusions. In the world of information and numbers, science is essential. However, ordinary science has no place in the spiritual paradigm, the subjective paradigm as there is no way to comprehend experience as it is, instead of as it is conceptualized. The Self-evident requires no proof, only awareness - and awareness is not susceptible to science's domain.

No, science and skepticism is applicable to all things. Even the intangible. How is it not capable of it? Science does not need to be isolated to the material world.

Main Questions

This is to help maintain continuity (and congruity);

1) Can you please explicitly define God how you are using it?
2) How is your view distinguished from Existential Humanism?
3) How can spirituality ever be proven wrong or adapt to new forms of knowledge?
3A) Are you presuming that spirituality is already all encompassing even of those things we have yet to discover? (eg. spirituality could not fathom the depths of psychology even 100 years ago, or quantum string theory, etc. What part of its doctrine allows open input of new evidence?)

Let's stick with that for now.

~

Wow You guys are going at it Toe to Toe!! I love it! Hats off to you guys Really and O'nus.

Spoiler for Significance of Spiritual Paradigm:

Originally Posted by O'nus

I completely agree that spirituality is most definitely a personal and relative matter.

[...]

It is simply an experience and nothing is more convincing to a human being than experiencing something. You must realize how easily deluded people can be based on that very fundamental fact. I do not think we need to debate the power of experience.

[...]

Tell me.. how is spiritualism adaptable to change?

[...]

3) How can spirituality ever be proven wrong or adapt to new forms of knowledge?
3A) Are you presuming that spirituality is already all encompassing even of those things we have yet to discover? (eg. spirituality could not fathom the depths of psychology even 100 years ago, or quantum string theory, etc. What part of its doctrine allows open input of new evidence?)

[...]

No, science and skepticism is applicable to all things. Even the intangible. How is it not capable of it? Science does not need to be isolated to the material world.

The problem is of paradigm. Your first statement in the quote implies that you think spirituality is transitory or vulnerable. Contrary to your "agreement", that which is Absolute, universal and impersonal is not subject to change, nor is it subject to science or such proof, and by essential definition, this is not a relative or personal matter! This is because of the nature of Truth and subjectivity, not because of bias or that which is "supernatural" or magical. Radical subjectivity reveals that the entirety of Reality is subjective, and objects (thus objectivity) merely lies within that context, along with science and its jargon; those of themselves have no power and no intrinsic requirement to prove that which provides the capacity for their own existence.

So you should take into account there is no room here for anyone to be deluded, mislead or especially given up to that which is false, because of the nature of this Infinite Reality. Hence "God's promise(s)" and Divine safety is intrinsic to this. There is no room in the infinite context for any change or proving of "concepts." This is not a science as even thoughts themselves are redundant! There is no way for this to be proven wrong or right, because it concerns context! Skepticism and science are both naive here, but skepticism may be seen as more reasonable. This skepticism is ultimately, from your perspective "I must prove the existence of 'I' as Reality." It is an illusory problem that inevitably fails by its own limitations, redundancy and naivete. The search for the real "I" is the core of spirituality.

Spoiler for Effects of Meditation/Prayer:

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is simply wrong. The amount of physiological activity is the same.

You are speaking of certain cases and, of course, spiritual cases of healing and epiphanies during meditation are much more glorified than those without spiritual context.

Do you really need to hear about the amount of healing that happens to people without any prayer but just sitting in a hospital bed and thinking?

There is no statistical difference between spiritual healing and natural healing.

[...]

Wrong; the breathing during TV is nothing relatively close to this slow breathing.

How about yoga? I can sit and slow breathe during yoga and, believe it or not, it has the same dramatic effects as the most powerful "praying" techniques.

Technically, yoga is overall healthier than meditation/prayer.

The above bolded text is what I have to point out as ridiculous. The spiritual context is what gives the entire meaning, significance and devotion to it all in the first place! You also need to take into account that Self-Realization is quite profound and is not something you just categorize as a general epiphany. Enlightenment is extremely uncommon, and I have yet to hear of an "enlightened being" who was transformed and yet had neither a religious nor a spiritual orientation. This is because of the nature of spiritual understanding, inclination, maturity and devotion. Also, I'm not sure what it means to you (because you don't seem to answer my questions) but spontaneous healings are not supernatural, hence spiritual healings are also natural.

As for your "yoga" stance, you need to stop generalizing. Yoga can be practiced in the form of meditation and its comparative healthiness and effectiveness depends on the type of meditation/prayer and its integrity of purpose.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What? So I am a Theist without even knowing it? That does not even make sense. You are really being generous with the definition of "God".

This is yet another reason why I suspect semantics because, by your logic here, everyone believes in God and just does not realize it.

I said "if he/she does" meditate for the purpose of God. If a self-proclaimed "Atheist" meditates for Absolute peace and forgiveness but disbelieves in, hates or greatly doubts God, they are simply naive. If they understand Divinity, the essential negation of the name "God" may be acceptable in some cases, but typically that negation is unusual. Of course, I'm not talking the difference in languages (through culture), but the actual meaning of Divine Reality.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I mentioned Attachment theory and you ignored it. Prayer functions on attachment and the psychology of relationships to a "God". The same methods in which one prays to God are parallel to those ways in which we would speak to our parents (or care-giver).

I didn't ignore Attachment theory directly as such, I simply didn't think it was worth arguing about and hence, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you form an attachment to God in this case, although it may affect the degree to which God is surrendered to (power given to God instead of personal will or logical thinking). It is of value/attachment and may govern one's life, but that does not invalidate its integrity or purpose.

Spoiler for Love:

Originally Posted by O'nus

You're equivocating the point. You said that prayers from the heart are much more potent for the individual - I said why - you said because they are from the heart - and I asked how is this not any different than confirmation bias? Then you reply with this?

[...]

This is just unreasonable. Love is love. Do not muddle things up like that.

Do you see what I mean about ruining the majesty of things?

Let me ask again, how is motivation from Love as equally potent as motivation out of selfishness? The propensities of each are in the context of praying and prayer, and they're actually quite predictable and different. The faith and belief is sufficient and strong enough, and that shapes our lives and our perception as such. Love is self-fulfilling. How is the love that intends to nurture and protect no more potent than what intends to be satisfied out of self-interest? How does not one's prayer of love not positively influence the external world by virtue of its existence?

You think God is not Love, right? I would say Divine Love is not personal/emotional love, but I guess you may not be happy with that answer. So tell me, in what way is Love distinguishable from the Divine Reality as I explained in my first and second paragraph?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Let us take Romeo and Juliet. They love each other. This is because of;
A) God
or
B) because they love each other

One reason is due to "C) Infatuation and romance/glamor", which you didn't provide. Nevertheless, "Romeo and Juliet" is completely irrelevant to the argument anyway.

Originally Posted by O'nus

In the words of Socrates, "All that I know, is that I know nothing" it is also important that he was considered the smartest person in the world because others claimed to know.

Yes, you could definitely say that! It helps one question real knowledge. Humility is the key.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You think spirituality seems to deep, I think Existentialism seem to frightening to you. As an Atheist Humanist Existentialist, I can apply science and logic to literally anything. Functioning on skepticism, it is also adaptable.

2) How is your view distinguished from Existential Humanism?

First of all, what is the relevance of Existential Humanism?

Existentialism is not something I am frightened of, it simply does not work with or contribute to my belief set, etc. Secondly, if you can't already tell the difference between generic spirituality and the associated awakenings, it seems you have not been paying close attention. I'd ask you, is the state and the purposes of Divine Revelation/Enlightenment held within "Existential Humanism?" Does "Existential Humanism" essentially contribute to (or follow from) the greatest of world religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism? Is it characterized by meditation and devoted lifestyles as held my those seeking the Self - and does that term even apply to anything as it is capitalized?

Originally Posted by O'nus

1) Can you please explicitly define God how you are using it?

I don't see the need to explain this, if you understand these definitions/qualities: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Divine, Subjective, Non-conceptual, Non-dual, Infinite. And, as I said: Through revelation and teachings/scriptures (etc.), the Self-Realized throughout history, to this day, all tell us that this is essentially the Divine Reality. Call it Bliss, God, Cosmos, Buddha, Mind, No-Mind, Self, Heaven, Enlightenment, Pure Consciousness or Reality. Love. Peace. I see God as all these things and has all these qualities at once, and that is simple. I really hope it is that easy for you.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Wow You guys are going at it Toe to Toe!! I love it! Hats off to you guys Really and O'nus.

Haha thanks Ne-yo and thanks for reading. Unfortunately we've kind of gone off-topic, so I've tried to simplify this and hopefully bring it back to the point.

I didn't like the video the OP posted. Too many presuppositions, arrogant and misleading.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I didn't like the video the OP posted. Too many presuppositions, arrogant and misleading.

Well said. Thanks for the simplicity.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I didn't like the video the OP posted. Too many presuppositions, arrogant and misleading.

PROTIP: The video provides a very specific argument against a specific set of beliefs. Would you prefer he speaks in broad generalizations to try and encompass every belief or would your knee-jerk reaction just change to one of "Oh, he's just generalizing." Honestly, why is it these stupid comments always have to come up? It's either someone makes a specific case and he's being too narrow or he speaks broadly and is accused of unfairly generalizing. How about one of you do something novel and actually try and say something relevant and meaningful (like, I dunno, show how the argument is wrong) for once rather than just making dismissive hand-wave comments? If you don't have anything to add, just don't post.

Originally Posted by Mark75

PROTIP: The video provides a very specific argument against a specific set of beliefs. Would you prefer he speaks in broad generalizations to try and encompass every belief or would your knee-jerk reaction just change to one of "Oh, he's just generalizing." Honestly, why is it these stupid comments always have to come up? It's either someone makes a specific case and he's being too narrow or he speaks broadly and is accused of unfairly generalizing. How about one of you do something novel and actually try and say something relevant and meaningful (like, I dunno, show how the argument is wrong) for once rather than just making dismissive hand-wave comments? If you don't have anything to add, just don't post.

He presupposes that every Christian has those set of beliefs, as well as extends his pseudo-interpretation of those even further, almost in a straw-man sort of way. Some of it doesn't even seem applicable to the people he's targeting, yet it's forced on, point upon point in the same smothering fashion.

I think you misinterpreted me.