[Agent Steel]

You'll recall earlier I gave an argument for atheism here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=167530

In general I am moderately satisfied with the argument as it stands, and was wholly unimpressed by the responses that were made against it.

To strengthen the case for atheism, I want to offer an additional piece of evidence to show that there is no God. The atheistic worldview is even more likely to be true in light of the following reasoning:

I contend that we have never been able to obtain any new information in our attempts to communicate with God. Prayer has never once been shown to give humanity access to any knowledge that didn't already exist in the mind of the person doing the prayer. It is by SCIENCE, not religion, that we advance our understanding of the world. In order for theism to be a plausible worldview, it would need to be shown that we have some direct way of accessing new information through God. This has never been done.

But if you want to argue otherwise, then here is a challenge for you to answer: Show me one instance of an observed phenomenon in which the religious explanation has progressed ahead of the scientific one in terms of plausibility. Unless and until you can do that, then I think we have every reason in the world do believe that there is no God.

[noemon]

If your argument is that universities and the academia are better at advancing our understanding of the natural world through science than religious institutions are, then sure they are, there is no question about it. But what you fail to realise is that modern universities trace back their origins to the monastic universities of the middle-ages and that both Cambridge & Oxford were founded by christian monks, in turn many modern universities were founded based on these models.

[Agent Steel]

If your argument is that universities and the academia are better at advancing our understanding of the natural world through science than religious institutions are, then sure they are, there is no question about it. But what you fail to realise is that modern universities trace back their origins to the monastic universities of the middle-ages and that both Cambridge & Oxford were founded by christian monks, in turn many modern universities were founded based on these models.

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the point I'm making about God's existence. First of all, the reason much of science originated within religious institutions is because the church had a fuck of a lot more power and influence back then. The church may have been the forum for scientific discovery to get off its feet but that says nothing at all about whether God was the cause behind the science. The point I am making is that you can't show a direct link between the obtainment of new knowledge and personal revelation with God. Why can't prayer ever lead to a prediction about the science of the future? Why can't anyone ever be revealed a prophecy through prayer that becomes a reality? The reason for this is because it cannot be shown that God's all mighty knowledge can be harnessed by anyone through prayer. Many of the most influential scientists were theistic in the past, but their scientific research and discovery was in no way related to their spiritual beliefs. The great discoveries and new ideas scientists come up with simply cannot be shown to have come from the mind of God via some sort of transfer of information. They could very well claim that God put the thoughts into their heads, but that belief has to be taken just by faith alone. We just don't have any good reason or evidence to think that prayer has ever been the cause of new revealed information. Prayer merely focuses your mental thoughts closer to what you already had in your own mind.

[noemon]

Prayer merely focuses your mental thoughts closer to what you already had in your own mind.

Prayer like meditation helps you focus indeed, why is that bad?

[Agent Steel]

Prayer like meditation helps you focus indeed, why is that bad?

Bad? It's not bad, it can be very good to focus and become in tune with your own thoughts. It's just not being accessed through an external source, it's all coming from your own brain.

[noemon]

I believe that accessing your own brain which in my humble opinion contains the entire human memory and as part of the whole it enables you access to the whole is essentially a holy experience. The Pythagoreans believe that doing mathematics is also a form of meditation that enables you access to the whole and as such also a holy exercise. Observe the similarity between the terms whole and holy. Their consonantal similarity is quite significant quite likely going back to the same route.

Essentially though what matters is the exercise itself, if someone sees it as an entirely personal and human exercise that is fine as long as such an exercise helps one focus, if someone else believes that he is coming into contact with the divine, again it does not really matter as long as the exercise helps that person focus and relax.

It is inconsequential and I am certain that different people will have different interpretations and different views about it.

[Besoeker]

If your argument is that universities and the academia are better at advancing our understanding of the natural world through science than religious institutions are, then sure they are, there is no question about it. But what you fail to realise is that modern universities trace back their origins to the monastic universities of the middle-ages and that both Cambridge & Oxford were founded by christian monks, in turn many modern universities were founded based on these models.

I'm tempted to say "so what?"
But you would probably give me an infraction so I will expand a little.
That some universities were founded by religious orders may be true and is probably more of a reflection of the structure of the social structure at that time.
The one I went to was named after a famous mathematician but that's by the by.

The point is that it does not advance the case for the existence of a god or gods.

[noemon]

No it doesn't indeed but the OP alludes to the statement that religious institutions do not do science and that there is a competition between the 2, when in fact monks established major scientific institutions. And that has always been my argument for religion not simply it's academia but the capacity of religious institutions to organise social life, either through academic institutions or through charity or by taking over the entire administration of a community in courts, law, academia just like Rabbis did for centuries in Europe who managed the administrative affairs of Jews. The Orthodox christians did the same under the Ottomans and I am sure other religions have maintained a peoples identity(like the Dalai Lamas in Tibet) in the absence of a state. This is again not an argument for god per se but it is an argument for religious institutions. Would the Jews even exist today without their Rabbis? Would the Greeks even exist without their Priests? Or would they have become assimilated, extinct & vanish from the historical record? And why would anyone support their extinction?

[Besoeker]

No it doesn't indeed but the OP alludes to the statement that religious institutions do not do science and that there is a competition between the 2, when in fact monks established major scientific institutions. And that has always been my argument for religion not simply it's academia but the capacity of religious institutions to organise social life, either through academic institutions or through charity or by taking over the entire administration of a community in courts, law, academia just like Rabbis did for centuries in Europe who managed the administrative affairs of Jews. The Orthodox christians did the same under the Ottomans and I am sure other religions have maintained a peoples identity(like the Dalai Lamas in Tibet) in the absence of a state. This is again not an argument for god per se but it is an argument for religious institutions. Would the Jews even exist today without their Rabbis? Would the Greeks even exist without their Priests? Or would they have become assimilated, extinct & vanish from the historical record? And why would anyone support their extinction?

I'm not for a moment suggesting extinction or the dissolution of such establishments. There can be little doubt that they have been immensly beneficial to the society. And I have no problem with their belief in a divine entity. It's just not mine.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

No it doesn't indeed but the OP alludes to the statement that religious institutions do not do science and that there is a competition between the 2, when in fact monks established major scientific institutions. And that has always been my argument for religion not simply it's academia but the capacity of religious institutions to organise social life, either through academic institutions or through charity or by taking over the entire administration of a community in courts, law, academia just like Rabbis did for centuries in Europe who managed the administrative affairs of Jews. The Orthodox christians did the same under the Ottomans and I am sure other religions have maintained a peoples identity(like the Dalai Lamas in Tibet) in the absence of a state. This is again not an argument for god per se but it is an argument for religious institutions. Would the Jews even exist today without their Rabbis? Would the Greeks even exist without their Priests? Or would they have become assimilated, extinct & vanish from the historical record? And why would anyone support their extinction?

No, the OP is about whether prayer advances knowledge, not about religious institutions. The institutions were where discussion between people took place, informed by reading texts from other times and places. This may have advanced knowledge, but through the purely secular activities, not prayer. For the fundamental question of 'do gods exist', the uselessness of prayer in either gaining knowledge or having any effect points to the lack of any god involved in it.

[jakell]

You'll recall earlier I gave an argument for atheism here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=167530

In general I am moderately satisfied with the argument as it stands, and was wholly unimpressed by the responses that were made against it.

To strengthen the case for atheism, I want to offer an additional piece of evidence to show that there is no God. The atheistic worldview is even more likely to be true in light of the following reasoning:

I contend that we have never been able to obtain any new information in our attempts to communicate with God. Prayer has never once been shown to give humanity access to any knowledge that didn't already exist in the mind of the person doing the prayer. It is by SCIENCE, not religion, that we advance our understanding of the world. In order for theism to be a plausible worldview, it would need to be shown that we have some direct way of accessing new information through God. This has never been done.

But if you want to argue otherwise, then here is a challenge for you to answer: Show me one instance of an observed phenomenon in which the religious explanation has progressed ahead of the scientific one in terms of plausibility. Unless and until you can do that, then I think we have every reason in the world do believe that there is no God.

Actually, you barely attended that thread apart from to say how folks weren't doing it right. you certainly didn't address the posts that addressed your initial statement.

I don't know who 'we' are, but I sense some hubris, you need to provide folks some motivation for wanting to change your(plural?) beliefs, otherwise 'who cares?'.
This seems an attempt to kickstart exactly the same arguments and positions as in 'Part 1'.

[Besoeker]

Actually, you barely attended that thread apart from to say how folks weren't doing it right. you certainly didn't address the posts that addressed your initial statement.

I don't know who 'we' are, but I sense some hubris, you need to provide folks some motivation for wanting to change your(plural?) beliefs, otherwise 'who cares?'.
This seems an attempt to kickstart exactly the same arguments and positions as in 'Part 1'.

Can you offer a counter argument?

[noemon]

No, the OP is about whether prayer advances knowledge, not about religious institutions.

For which I stated my opinion in my previous post. Prayer like meditation is essentially a mental exercise and mental exercises help one focus so that one advances ones mental faculties which in turn facilitate the expansion of knowledge & understanding. Prayer does not give one knowledge as in teach someone how to write, however people who pray and meditate do gain knowledge about their own bodies and how to optimise their breathing, heart rate and posture which is also knowledge. This in turn trains these people to moderate their emotions.

[Agent Steel]

Actually, you barely attended that thread apart from to say how folks weren't doing it right. you certainly didn't address the posts that addressed your initial statement.

I don't know who 'we' are, but I sense some hubris, you need to provide folks some motivation for wanting to change your(plural?) beliefs, otherwise 'who cares?'.
This seems an attempt to kickstart exactly the same arguments and positions as in 'Part 1'.

Because hardly any of the responses were worth addressing. I took the time to write out a lengthy argument for atheism, and people were too lazy to come up with any substantive responses. I know there were people who disagreed with me and that's fine. I still feel satisfied to have put the argument out there.

[Besoeker]

For which I stated my opinion in my previous post. Prayer like meditation is essentially a mental exercise and mental exercises help one focus so that one advances ones mental faculties which in turn facilitate the expansion of knowledge & understanding. Prayer does not give one knowledge as in teach someone how to write, however people who pray and meditate do gain knowledge about their own bodies and how to optimise their breathing, heart rate and posture which is also knowledge. This in turn trains these people to moderate their emotions.

I won't disagree with that. But it doesn't make a case for theism as opposed to atheism.

[XogGyux]

If your argument is that universities and the academia are better at advancing our understanding of the natural world through science than religious institutions are, then sure they are, there is no question about it. But what you fail to realise is that modern universities trace back their origins to the monastic universities of the middle-ages and that both Cambridge & Oxford were founded by christian monks, in turn many modern universities were founded based on these models.

That is a poorly disguised argumentum ad antiquitatem logical fallacy. All that exists today have in some form been built on something that existed prior. If your argument had any value we should be honoring behaving like the savages led by Genghis Khan, or any one of our more closely related ape ancestors.
The existence of modern university and academia do not require or impose the existence of religion anymore than the existence of the VW Beetle or Coca Cola Fanta requires the existence of Nazi Germany.

Prayer like meditation helps you focus indeed, why is that bad?

Tell that to the thousand of people that pray instead of seeking medical care.

Would the Jews even exist today without their Rabbis?

Would the Jews even be Jews without religion? (probably not)

And why would anyone support their extinction?

Equivocation. You are using "extinction of religion" and applying it it "extinction of people".

No, the OP is about whether prayer advances knowledge, not about religious institutions. The institutions were where discussion between people took place, informed by reading texts from other times and places. This may have advanced knowledge, but through the purely secular activities, not prayer. For the fundamental question of 'do gods exist', the uselessness of prayer in either gaining knowledge or having any effect points to the lack of any god involved in it.

Agreed. Also, you know a plan is shit when a stand up comedian can make such plan look very stupid with a logically sound joke:

Because hardly any of the responses were worth addressing. I took the time to write out a lengthy argument for atheism, and people were too lazy to come up with any substantive responses. I know there were people who disagreed with me and that's fine. I still feel satisfied to have put the argument out there.

Actually @jakell has a point. Your previous thread had a very poorly constructed and full of holes "argument" that got scrutinized (and basically destroyed) after just a handful of posts and all you did was complain that we were doing it wrong. Now, trust me I support the point you are trying to make, but you are using the wrong tools and poor logic to advance that point and even though it is the same point I agree with I will be part of the opposition every time you make a foolish claim.

[noemon]

That is a poorly disguised argumentum ad antiquitatem logical fallacy. All that exists today have in some form been built on something that existed prior. If your argument had any value we should be honoring behaving like the savages led by Genghis Khan, or any one of our more closely related ape ancestors.
The existence of modern university and academia do not require or impose the existence of religion anymore than the existence of the VW Beetle or Coca Cola Fanta requires the existence of Nazi Germany.

That is all false, this is not an argument that something is right because of it's age, there is a dependency, modern academia would not exist without the monks that set up the first academic institutions which is a more than adequate argument to demolish the argument that science & religion stand at opposing sides.

Tell that to the thousand of people that pray instead of seeking medical care.

Prayer is not a cure for stupidity and the absence of prayer is evidently not a cure for it either.

Would the Jews even be Jews without religion? (probably not)
Equivocation. You are using "extinction of religion" and applying it it "extinction of people".

You are not making an argument to the contrary.

[XogGyux]

That is all false, this is not an argument that something is right because of it's age, there is a dependency, modern academia would not exist without the monks that set up the first academic institutions which is a more than adequate argument to demolish the argument that science & religion stand at opposing sides.

Prove to me that modern science cannot exist in the absence of religion then we can talk.
Of course they are in opposing sides.

You are not making an argument to the contrary.

I don't have to. You are using a false equivalency.

[B0ycey]

You'll recall earlier I gave an argument for atheism here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=167530

In general I am moderately satisfied with the argument as it stands, and was wholly unimpressed by the responses that were made against it.

Oh my. PART TWO!!! I lost a whole day of my life because of 'part one'. The reason your last threads argument was dismissed by viewers was because your premises didn't work with logic. Premise 'Five' was an assumption not evidence. Everyone except you understood this. How was you satisfied with your argument?

To strengthen the case for atheism, I want to offer an additional piece of evidence to show that there is no God. The atheistic worldview is even more likely to be true in light of the following reasoning:

I contend that we have never been able to obtain any new information in our attempts to communicate with God. Prayer has never once been shown to give humanity access to any knowledge that didn't already exist in the mind of the person doing the prayer. It is by SCIENCE, not religion, that we advance our understanding of the world. In order for theism to be a plausible worldview, it would need to be shown that we have some direct way of accessing new information through God. This has never been done.

This isn't evidence, just a proposition. Science relies on evidence. Religion on faith. Faith doesn't rely on information to be returned for it to work as a concept. Even though Science has more behind it in terms of substance, it can't explain everything that is happening in the universe today. And while there is doubt, there is room for the possibility of 'god'. But please @XogGyux, let's no go though our argument again and just agree to disagree on our opinions here.

But if you want to argue otherwise, then here is a challenge for you to answer: Show me one instance of an observed phenomenon in which the religious explanation has progressed ahead of the scientific one in terms of plausibility. Unless and until you can do that, then I think we have every reason in the world do believe that there is no God.

Again, religion relies on faith. What you state here is a reason more people are becoming atheists because they are questioning more. But this is not evidence against God's existence, just an assumption that he is more likely not to exist than exist because science has more substance behind it.

[noemon]

Prove to me that modern science cannot exist in the absence of religion then we can talk.
Of course they are in opposing sides.

You said it yourself

I don't have to. You are using a false equivalency.

If you want to dispute the fact that monks founded the academic institutions I mentioned then go ahead and deny reality, it won't change history even if you turn blue in the face.

Next, just asserting something does not make it true, it merely proves the desperation of the interlocutor.

Prove how the Jewish people would exist today as a people if they had abandoned their religion.