The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The power, or not, of prayer > Comments

The power, or not, of prayer : Comments

By Brian Baker, published 27/1/2011

Drought and floods: did prayer completely fail? Or was it an overwhelming success?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 41
  14. 42
  15. 43
  16. All
Grateful,
You and Sheikh Nuh both string a lot of words together but they do not make much sense.

I start with facts and have examined how the evidence builds up.

A basic fact is that humans live on a 4.5 billion year old planet which includes debris from an earlier supernova event so our solar system is young in a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Microscopic life probably existed well before hard shelled animals started to leave fossils but the marine fossil record is virtually complete and the land based fossil record is gradually becoming so. The land environment is not nearly as friendly to fossil formation as ocean sediments.

Nuh’s argument seems to claim that we are unique for our consciousness. We are not! Every farmer knows that his livestock are conscious, particularly his cattle. Make a noise like a calf in trouble and every cow within hearing will race to the scene in panic.

The human line shares a common ancestor with all primates the early versions of which survived as small mammals in the age of the dinosaurs which became extinct some 65 million years ago (apart from the birds).

That 1.1-1.2 metre tall australopithecines started walking upright 5-6 million years ago is now widely accepted in science. Walking upright freed the hands so that an opposable grip became feasible and the tools and weapons then possible made a meat eating diet available.

There is substantial evidence that we owe the progressive development of our forefathers’ larger brain to the fats that hunting fed us
.
Evolution is not a fixed theory in much the same way as Newtonian physics had to be varied slightly to accommodate Einstein’s Relativity but the basic science of evolution is now far beyond well reasoned or even sensible argument.

There are plenty of Christian and Muslim creationist websites which show that the thinking of many people is archaic.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 28 January 2011 11:10:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I think the definition of atheist by the Atheist Foundation of Australia is defining atheism as they would like it to be rather than what it is. It is as the philosophers say, confusing an ought with an is. My philosophical stance is to accept no form of supernatural. Buddhists who do accept a supernatural but not a a deity have the right to call themselves atheists.

To the best of my knowledge there is no commonly accepted word in the English language to define a person who does not accept a supernatural. To determine the common usage of the word, atheist, ask people what it means to them. I doubt that anyone outside of AFA accepts the AFA definition. Please let me know if you find such a person.
Posted by david f, Friday, 28 January 2011 11:25:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish

'runner, if you're going to accuse Brian of some unspecified 'sin', at least have the cojones to come out and say it.'

Lets just say that Brian chose a lifestyle contrary to that which he preached to others. His attempts now to justify that lifestyle of unbelief by what he calls 'reason' defies all logic. Repentance would be my advice to him rather than denial of the obvious.
Posted by runner, Friday, 28 January 2011 11:42:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
davidf,

You haven’t explained your ideological comment nor have you explained why Atheists do not accept a god exists.

I believe pure Buddhism doesn’t have a supernatural component. It became a supernatural religion because that is what humans do. There are 34,000 examples to back me up on this.

Atheists outside of the AFA do accept the definition but it is not compulsory to do so.

Now enough sidelining, can you answer the two questions I posed. Posting is limited in number so I expect you not to vacillate over this. Thanks

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 28 January 2011 12:02:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish, I think what runner is alluding to, in a rather nasty and oblique way, is Brian’s homosexuality. There may be some grain of truth in the contention that Brian’s sexuality was a factor in his rejection of religion, in that the literalist brand of fundamentalism he used to subscribe sees homosexuality as a sin. If my religion said my sexuality was as sin I might start to question it too. But in my opinion the problem lies with literalist fundamentalism, not God.

Mac, I’m regular churchgoer and self-described Christian (runner might disagree) but I’m quite comfortable with the proposition that “there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural”, so I guess that makes me an “atheist” too
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 January 2011 2:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,

I'll accept your argument that there are different definitions of 'atheism'. However, it seems logically inconsistent to me that, by your definition, atheists would agree that there's no evidence for one class of supernatural being(God) and still maintain the reality of spirits, demons and other non-material entities and forces.

As to atheism being an ideology, you should refer to the AFA's definition.
Religious people often represent atheism falsely, as an ideology, either because they are incapable of thinking outside the constraints of doctrine or, in an attempt to create a straw man. I'm surprised that you, as an atheist have taken that position.Or are you saying that the AFA itself has an ideological position?

Rhian,

You've made an interesting and very significant point. Many people are just 'religious' or 'believers' and find meaning in life from their faith. The notion,that some atheists have, that belief can be 'cured' by more education or is the result of higher IQs is probably mistaken.
I'm a born atheist,despite a religious education, I'm probably psychologically incapable of anything other than a materialist view of the universe.
Posted by mac, Friday, 28 January 2011 3:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 41
  14. 42
  15. 43
  16. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy