The real actual totally 100% legitimate truth about prayer.

[Flackle]

You can't prove that god doesn't exist and you also can't prove that prayer doesn't do anything. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and etc.
I agree that people probably pray to make themselves feel better, to connect with god, gain hope, and so on. But, what's wrong with having hope? Even if it's false hope, it can actually help some people improve their lives.
I'm not very religious, I'm actually quite agnostic, but I don't think praying a bad or silly thing for people to do.

I can defiantly prove the god of the Bible not only doesn't exist, but cannot possibly exist. Setting aside all the logical fallacies the christian bible presents, it's pretty obvious it was written by humans who where not divinely inspired. All historical evidence points to a long line of writers and editors of the bible. If god was so perfect, why does his book need 100's of revised editions?

I would argue that telling someone they should pray instead of giving them real-world advice that would actually improve their situation is damaging. Pray, in its totality, harms society as a whole rather than helps society. We need to learn to stop relying on false hope, and start relying on ourselves. Science is our attempt to become more self reliant, and it has done a lot so far. Prayer has no place in our modern society, it's a ritual that dates back to the stone age and it should be only remembered as a historical fact rather than a modern day practice.

Again, though, if someone wishes to practice prayer then they should be allowed to if they wish. I don't think is should be made illegal anything like that (I am an avid supporter of freedom of speech, and am frivolously against any form of censorship.), but if someone begins to reach to others and tell them that prayer is the only way to achieve happiness (and this is what I see a lot of) then that's where my line has to be drawn and where my criticisms really begin.

While it's true that the Bible has been revised many times and things have been taken out, that still isn't enough evidence to conclude that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. You still can't prove if the actions in the Bible happened or not (unless you can time travel or something). Even though it was written by humans, you can't say that they lied/made it all up just because they were not divinely inspired. I agree with your statements about science. Honestly, if we hadn't pursued science we'd all be stuck in the stone age and there probably wouldn't be any advancements.
Yes, I totally understand what you mean. People who follow a certain religion/belief system tend to believe that their way is right and everything else isn't. It's offensive to others, but they're taught that their way is the right way and that it's their duty to tell others that it is.

Although I cannot get physical evidence (like a picture), we can investigate what evidence human beings left behind and make connections. We can use the evidence of different historians to determine the truth, for example. If a good enough number of historians left any indication that the miracles of Jesus happened (which wouldn't be out of the question to ask of said historians) outside of the bible then that's something to go on. No such indication exist. Therefore, why should we believe the miracles in the bible actually happened? Although I cannot disprove these things didn't happen, I also cannot disprove magical rainbow colored flying unicorns destroyed Atlantis and created all of humanity. The reason it isn't logically sound to ask someone to disprove something someone else is saying is real (other than being an inherent fallacy) has to do with prudence. If we are expected to disprove non-reality then we'll be here until the end of time.

Also, if those in the bible where not divinely inspired then how can the bible be the "word of god?" that is so often attributed too.

[jcalexis]

praying works only for those who believe.

[Flackle]

praying works only for those who believe.

Prayer doesn't work for anyone. Just because youou believe it doesn't make it true. That's now how reality works. Are you saying that those who believe refused to pray to god to heal amputees?

[tangiechan]

Although I cannot get physical evidence (like a picture), we can investigate what evidence human beings left behind and make connections. We can use the evidence of different historians to determine the truth, for example. If a good enough number of historians left any indication that the miracles of Jesus happened (which wouldn't be out of the question to ask of said historians) outside of the bible then that's something to go on. No such indication exist. Therefore, why should we believe the miracles in the bible actually happened? Although I cannot disprove these things didn't happen, I also cannot disprove magical rainbow colored flying unicorns destroyed Atlantis and created all of humanity. The reason it isn't logically sound to ask someone to disprove something someone else is saying is real (other than being an inherent fallacy) has to do with prudence. If we are expected to disprove non-reality then we'll be here until the end of time.

Also, if those in the bible where not divinely inspired then how can the bible be the "word of god?" that is so often attributed too.

My whole point is, no one can prove anything about this topic. It will just keep going in circles and nothing will be solved unless someone finds physical, legit evidence supporting their views.
I think people are generally uninformed/misinformed about who wrote the Bible and etc. Some are misled and think it is the exact word of god and it actually isn't. The Bible is basically a collection of writings by different authors to convey the message of god (not words that said god literally spoke). It contains writings by people who were recalling an event (if it's true), heard the content from someone else/word of mouth, and etc.

[Flackle]

Although I cannot get physical evidence (like a picture), we can investigate what evidence human beings left behind and make connections. We can use the evidence of different historians to determine the truth, for example. If a good enough number of historians left any indication that the miracles of Jesus happened (which wouldn't be out of the question to ask of said historians) outside of the bible then that's something to go on. No such indication exist. Therefore, why should we believe the miracles in the bible actually happened? Although I cannot disprove these things didn't happen, I also cannot disprove magical rainbow colored flying unicorns destroyed Atlantis and created all of humanity. The reason it isn't logically sound to ask someone to disprove something someone else is saying is real (other than being an inherent fallacy) has to do with prudence. If we are expected to disprove non-reality then we'll be here until the end of time.

Also, if those in the bible where not divinely inspired then how can the bible be the "word of god?" that is so often attributed too.

My whole point is, no one can prove anything about this topic. It will just keep going in circles and nothing will be solved unless someone finds physical, legit evidence supporting their views.
I think people are generally uninformed/misinformed about who wrote the Bible and etc. Some are misled and think it is the exact word of god and it actually isn't. The Bible is basically a collection of writings by different authors to convey the message of god (not words that said god literally spoke). It contains writings by people who were recalling an event (if it's true), heard the content from someone else/word of mouth, and etc.

My whole point is the burden of proof is put on the religious to prove the claims made by their religion. If they cannot do this, we must assume these claims are false until such evidence presents itself. This is how the scientific method works. We don't just assume something can be true (or even possibly true) just because someone may say so and that evidence might exist. The scientific method doesn't even deal with absolutes at all, since evidence can present itself contrary to prior conclusions.

[Falconer02]

While it's true that the Bible has been revised many times and things have been taken out, that still isn't enough evidence to conclude that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. You still can't prove if the actions in the Bible happened or not

Of course you can. Rationally atleast. The flood myth? Every single shred of evidence in history says it did not happen. The amount of co2 being rained upon the earth would have killed every mammal within minutes. Every creationist argument has been refuted by basic science. Societies (such as ancient asian and indian cultures) existed w/o any mention of a flood destroying everything (though there are random flood myths throughout many cultures, they all seem to have been created at separate times-- same with earthquake myths, tornados, etc.). I know this example is a bit harsh, but I consider this Santa Clause logic. You can say it's likely Santa exists and that kids get their toys from him, but-

1.) I can show you the parents saying they bought them.
2.) I can show you the receipts for the toys.
3.) We can go to the store and I can show you where the shelf where the items were purchased.
4.) We can check the security tapes and see the parents buying the toys.
5.) We can travel to Japan/China and I can have you meet with the marketing director, factory workers, and shipping detail to indicate they were made there and shipped to the US.

If you still believe that Santa Clause delivered them in one night (and you have every right to, but...), that is delusional thinking and faulty reasoning. The same can be said with all supernatural claims in the bible. There is no evidence for these things (besides fallible creationists who have a long history of lying), and the proof lies in reality. And since the bible is fallible, it's not a reliable source for truth.

[Flackle]

If a person believes in something that makes them feel better and doesn't hurt others why does it matter if it isn't true. Sometimes our experience of the world can be improved by our beliefs. If I really thought about all the terrible things that are happening every day all over the world so many of which are out of our control it would cause even the most sane person to go insane or worse. If some people feel that prayer improves their life and the life of others then why stop or persuade them otherwise. 

Because prayer isn't a substitute for the real thing. Tricking yourself into feeling better by making you think you're making a difference by praying can never replaced actually doing something helpful and feeling good for it. Not only is real accomplishment hard to replaced, it also helps society a lot more than prayer does. For example:

Scenario 1:
Person A wants to cure cancer.
Person A pursues this dream, and becomes a doctor.
Person B wants to cure cancer.
Person B pursues this dream, and starts to pray.
Person A cures cancer.

Scenario 2:
Person A is on the verge of curing cancer, but reaches a roadblock.
Person B convinces person A that their methods are wrong and that they should start praying.
Person A starts to pray instead of actually attempting to cure cancer.
Neither Person A nor Person B cures anyone of cancer.

Which Scenario would you support?

This may be a extreme example, but those who seek to spread the message of prayer do seek out (whether intentional or not) those who are at a point in their life that they are most vulnerable to any solution for a problem they may have. The fact remains, the world is not better of with prayer. Real accomplishment can not only make a person feel good, but actually can benefit those around you. Prayer may make the people praying feel good, but we're all better off without it if it means instead of praying these same people substitute the effort for something constructive.

[tangiechan]

While it's true that the Bible has been revised many times and things have been taken out, that still isn't enough evidence to conclude that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. You still can't prove if the actions in the Bible happened or not

Of course you can. Rationally atleast. The flood myth? Every single shred of evidence in history says it did not happen. The amount of co2 being rained upon the earth would have killed every mammal within minutes. Every creationist argument has been refuted by basic science. Societies (such as ancient asian and indian cultures) existed w/o any mention of a flood destroying everything (though there are random flood myths throughout many cultures, they all seem to have been created at separate times-- same with earthquake myths, tornados, etc.).

In that case, okay.

My whole point is the burden of proof is put on the religious to prove the claims made by their religion. If they cannot do this, we must assume these claims are false until such evidence presents itself. This is how the scientific method works. We don't just assume something can be true (or even possibly true) just because someone may say so and that evidence might exist. The scientific method doesn't even deal with absolutes at all, since evidence can present itself contrary to prior conclusions.

Point understood. Then, your claims can also be assumed as false until proven. The religious don't have proof because some of their claims are hard to prove to be false or true. Your claims are the same. Most is just assumed.

I'm aware that the Bible includes myths. They're pretty similar to myths from others (Greek mythology, Sumerian creation myth, & etc). Just wondering, but have either of you even read at least some of the Bible?

[Flackle]

While it's true that the Bible has been revised many times and things have been taken out, that still isn't enough evidence to conclude that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. You still can't prove if the actions in the Bible happened or not

Of course you can. Rationally atleast. The flood myth? Every single shred of evidence in history says it did not happen. The amount of co2 being rained upon the earth would have killed every mammal within minutes. Every creationist argument has been refuted by basic science. Societies (such as ancient asian and indian cultures) existed w/o any mention of a flood destroying everything (though there are random flood myths throughout many cultures, they all seem to have been created at separate times-- same with earthquake myths, tornados, etc.).

In that case, okay.

My whole point is the burden of proof is put on the religious to prove the claims made by their religion. If (they cannot do this, we must assume these claims are false until such evidence presents itself. This is how the scientific method works. We don't just assume something can be true (or even possibly true) just because someone may say so and that evidence might exist. The scientific method doesn't even deal with absolutes at all, since evidence can present itself contrary to prior conclusions.

Point understood. Then, your claims can also be assumed as false until proven. The religious don't have proof because some of their claims are hard to prove to be false or true. Your claims are the same. Most is just assumed.

I'm aware that the Bible includes myths. They're pretty similar to myths from others (Greek mythology, Sumerian creation myth, & etc). Just wondering, but have either of you even read at least some of the Bible?

My claim that prayer doesn't have an effect isn't that hard to conceive. There has been studies done on prayer (both scientific and anecdotal) showing that prayer has little to no effect on a given outcome. Here's one I was able to find: http://timlightfoot.com/Focus/Intercessory_prayer_study.pdf

Also, my claims are no where near as unbelievable as the claim that prayer works. In order for prayer to be an effective means of solving problems, we would first have to assume a god exist. The claim that god exist has no proof, thus we cannot assume god exits. I make no such claim, only that prayer is false because those who say prayer works cannot provide evidence. Or at least, if they could, they haven't yet.

[Falconer02]

Im aware that the Bible includes myths. They're pretty similar to myths from others (Greek mythology, Sumerian creation myth, & etc). Just wondering, but have either of you even read at least some of the Bible?

A have read the majority of the OT and a little of the "feel-good parts" of the NT (Matt, Mark, Luke, John). Beyond that, I've peppered my knowledge with random studies on specific chapters and such. I do not consider myself a guru on it, but reading it was a major influence on me realizing it was bogus and steering away from the belief system. Why do you ask?

[tangiechan]

Im aware that the Bible includes myths. They're pretty similar to myths from others (Greek mythology, Sumerian creation myth, & etc). Just wondering, but have either of you even read at least some of the Bible?

A have read the majority of the OT and a little of the "feel-good parts" of the NT (Matt, Mark, Luke, John). Beyond that, I've peppered my knowledge with random studies on specific chapters and such. I do not consider myself a guru on it, but reading it was a major influence on me realizing it was bogus and steering away from the belief system. Why do you ask?

To make sure you aren't just judging something you don't know anything about.

[jcribb16]

Don't be sorry for giving your own opinion.  God isn't real for you - that's pretty obvious.  So much so that you make a thread speaking of God not being real. 

My God is real, whether you say so or not.  Just because you say my God is not real, does not make your opinion the law of the land. 

If it makes you feel comforted and better to shout to the forum that God is not real, then I hope this thread has made you feel that way.  But it does not prove my God is not real to me.  Your post was most interesting, though.

[Falconer02]

To make sure you aren't just judging something you don't know anything about

Fair enough.

My God is real, whether you say so or not.  Just because you say my God is not real, does not make your opinion the law of the land. 

Believe what you want to believe! Flackle and I never stated that people MUST think the way we do. We're just stating the obvious. The logical and rational conclusion will continue to say that this god and the practices are both fake.

[Flackle]

Don't be sorry for giving your own opinion.  God isn't real for you - that's pretty obvious.  So much so that you make a thread speaking of God not being real.  

My God is real, whether you say so or not.  Just because you say my God is not real, does not make your opinion the law of the land.  

If it makes you feel comforted and better to shout to the forum that God is not real, then I hope this thread has made you feel that way.  But it does not prove my God is not real to me.  Your post was most interesting, though.

I find it quite humorous to think that when an atheist shares his or her opinion to the religious, they automatically assume this person is yelling at them. I'm not implying you're the only one doing this, I have had it come across to me on several occasions. I'm not "shouting' to the the forum, I'm simply expressing my viewpoint in one collectible thread so that I'm not responding to 5 different threads on this very topic.

I also find it strange that you perceive my opinion as an attempt to change the "law of the land" when religion was the law of the land for a long time. The law of the land in modern times is that we are allowed to have varying opinions on the matter of religion. Nothing I said implied I wanted to change that.

I don't want to use the law to change people's view on religion because I don't believe in force and coercion. If someone willingly reads my post and comes to the logical conclusion that religion is made up, then that's great and no force need to be applied. In fact, when I "covert" someone in this manner I am being a lot less forceful than when a christian (or other such similar religion) converts a non-believer because the tactic that is usually applied is coercion ie: "You're going to Hell if you don't believe what I say."

[jcribb16]

Don't be sorry for giving your own opinion.  God isn't real for you - that's pretty obvious.  So much so that you make a thread speaking of God not being real.  

My God is real, whether you say so or not.  Just because you say my God is not real, does not make your opinion the law of the land.  

If it makes you feel comforted and better to shout to the forum that God is not real, then I hope this thread has made you feel that way.  But it does not prove my God is not real to me.  Your post was most interesting, though.

I find it quite humorous to think that when an atheist shares his or her opinion to the religious, they automatically assume this person is yelling at them. I'm not implying you're the only one doing this, I have had it come across to me on several occasions. I'm not "shouting' to the the forum, I'm simply expressing my viewpoint in one collectible thread so that I'm not responding to 5 different threads on this very topic.

I also find it strange that you perceive my opinion as an attempt to change the "law of the land" when religion was the law of the land for a long time. The law of the land in modern times is that we are allowed to have varying opinions on the matter of religion. Nothing I said implied I wanted to change that.

I don't want to use the law to change people's view on religion because I don't believe in force and coercion. If someone willingly reads my post and comes to the logical conclusion that religion is made up, then that's great and no force need to be applied. In fact, when I "covert" someone in this manner I am being a lot less forceful than when a christian (or other such similar religion) converts a non-believer because the tactic that is usually applied is coercion ie: "You're going to Hell if you don't believe what I say."

1.  I did not say you were "yelling" at me.  You do this quite frequently when it's obvious no one is yelling.  "Shouting" to the forum is a figure of speech - sorry you didn't realize or chose to not realize the difference.

2.  You commented that you were sorry, God is not real.  Your opinion.  I'm saying back there is no need to apologize for your "opinion," but that to me, God is real.  My opinion and belief on the matter, based on things evidenced in my own personal life, others' lives, testimonies, God's Word, amongst other things.  You don't have to believe that - I'm not coercing anyone to do so, especially you, at this point and time.

3.  You do "appear" to contradict yourself.  You say you "don't want to use the law to change people's view on religion because I don't believe in force and coercion. If someone willingly reads my post and comes to the logical conclusion that religion is made up, then that's great and no force need to be applied."  Yet - you also say, "I'd like to start off by saying that your god isn't real. Sorry.;  Praying doesn't solve anything. Praying is simply giving yourself false hope when you should in fact have real hope as a result of actually doing something to help a given situation. Don't pray that we may find a cure for cancer when you can take that same effort and fund raise for charity. Prayer has been shown to cause no affect to the outcome of an event. Prayer's effects, no matter how massive the number of people are involved, has never been scientifically shown to make a significant differences in the outcome of an event. "
 
  A. You "seem" to be trying to "coerce" someone away from making their own personal research and decision with stating your opinion as "implied fact."  You have no proof of what you were saying to be true, anyway, since you do not claim to know God personally, so you therefore have no "conversation/answers" within your "no prayer" personal life. 

  B. Those who do pray, have been provided answers, whether a direct "no," a "yes," or a maybe not/maybe later.  Usually, with any of these, a believer can determine, if not now, then later, why the answers came to what they were at the time.

  C. Regarding your example of prayer as opposed to fund raising efforts/charities to help find a cure for cancer: Believers can, do, and will pray for the cancer victims, families, friends, doctors, nurses - everyone involved, including the scientists working on trying to find a cure.  However, while that's all some people may feel they can do to help in whatever way they can, there are many, believers or not, who also get out there and donate time and money, and help raise funds for the hopeful cures, food, clothing, hospital stays, meds, and/or whatever they can do to help.  We have at least 3 young children just in our small town who are struggling even now with cancer.  It's wonderful and amazing how much support, monetary, prayer, and comfort - are being given and offered by most of the citizens of our town - both believers and disbelievers.  The point is, they are all working together to help try and do something; anything at all, to give support, care, concern, and love. 

  D. My point, is that just because some people pray for needs like cancer, does not mean they sit on their duffs and do nothing.  Some may - but most do not; blame for doing "nothing" can actually be applied towards anyone, believer or not, doing nothing to help - yet vocally demanding everyone else needs to be helping. 

  E.  Prayer is powerful - for believers who know this to be true - and becomes a great and personal way of a believer's life.  And most believers I know do not and will not try and "coerce" others to pray when it's something others do not wish to do.  That point can be made for both sides - everyone willingly chooses what to or what not to believe in their lives, and should not be chided or belittled for doing so.