I'll be honest in saying that I do not understand what you are trying to say. If you come back to visit the thread would you mind explaining it a bit more fully? You seem to have mixed in someone else's comments with my own, and I'm not sure to what you are actually responding to.

I took one semester of Ethics, enough to know not to get involved in this discussion. Still, I'd like to throw in my two cents-€ about my personal point of view.

'It's not god I dislike, it's his fan club that I can't stand.'

With all due respect and no offense meant at all, but people like Feud argueing the way they do always creep me out.

This thread is a classic example of why Game Developers keep well away from Religion in games - few things, arguably no other, are as likely to ignite a powder keg of claim counter claim, verging on outright warfare from competing factions. Civilization IV got away with it as Sid Mier insisted that the recent expansion of Religion in the Civilization series be meticulously even handed, and the effect of all Religions in the game were to be dealt with precisely the same - even then they had a barrage of "why isnt my Religion there" etc.

I personally am atheist - after many years of being agnostic - for my own private reasons. Nevertheless, I support and will fight for the Right of individuals to hold their own beliefs. However there the topic should rest, with the right to hold different beliefs. To go down the road of claim, counter claim, they are right, they are wrong, yaddie yadda, is an exercise of supreme futility. No one will ever shift their beliefs based on such a thread or discussion, just become more heated as they feel slighted ot attacked.

Religious beliefs have been the foundation of many horrific conflicts in History, and they will be again as time goes by. Its human nature, regretably. Meanwhile I for one support the developers creed of steering clear of this one, they are developing a game(s) - nothing more, nothing less.

Regards
Zy

Actually, I've found this discussion to be remarkably calm and friendly. I'll admit that I have found some people's logic to be a bit shaky, but that's to be expected given the inherent nature of discussing belief vs. knowledge.

It dousn't relate, to what you were saying, nevertheless your comments made me remember!

I cannot quite put my finger on what made me think they were Christians.... but it is related specifically to the sequence of events of the bad things that took place and the way they happened.

You see in the world there are all mannor of completely random events both good and bad, but on rare occasions you can sometimes feel that there is somthing more going on. I could best describe it as a conspiracy theory, only it ain't humans behind the conspiracy! So yea, somehow i picked up on the conspiracy against those people and realised they must be Christian.

This sounds a bit 'out there' i know, but it did really happen!



Yes Christians can have a way of devaluing things non Christians say. That was not my intention, sorry. Personally i believe that if i wan't people to listen to my view as a Christian, then i have to be prepared to listen to other peoples views as well, and give them due credit with my own brain.

ElWhop0, can you prove to us that you are not a Drengin?

This is a good point! It is precisely why i always try to avoid standard religious retoric and bring my own weird and obscure ideas to the table instead.... sorry about that hehehe lol.

But seriously, what does cause somone to change their view and either stop or start believing in God?

A very strange experience could bring about a change.

Devoting a great amount of time researching with a truly open mind could also effect a change.

Thing is, once a decision has been made - especially if based on both of the above - the open mind necessarily becomes closed (one way, or the other).

Thats weird... my two last posts dissapeared?

I'm sorry, I never meant to offend. What I meant is when you talk about God people usually think you are weird and a freak nowadays. This is evidenced by the above quote. I know that no offence was meant but in no other conversation someone will call one a freak just because they are trying to say what they think and trying to give their own evidence( even though the other person will not think that it's evidence.) I'm all for going against the grain, nobody likes being average, but going against it just to go against it doesn't make sense.

About the study being wrong, and me not answering, I'm sorry, but I'm located in a different time zone and had to sleep and do some work as well. I am very busy during this period, and in fact I wouldn't join this discussion if it was something else since I would be wasting time; it's just that I felt strongly about the subject and felt that I wanted to contribute.


The study says:
"The results of a long-awaited scientific study aimed at measuring the effect of third-party prayer for hospitalized patients not only did not match the expectations of those conducting the study, but also may have raised more questions for researchers than it answered. Among them: Can even the most carefully designed trial measure prayer's effects?"

It seems that they are not sure what their experiments did. When I first read on NewScientist, I thought that they said that it helped, but obviously they reached ambivalent results. But as the authors say:

"The authors were careful to point out the limited conclusions that could be drawn from their study. "Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this belief," the authors wrote. "Our study focused only on intercessory prayer as provided in this trial and was never intended to and cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups.""

The Orthodox church is Apostolic as well, since the the Patriarchs and all the priests receive Ordain which descended from when the Apostles ordained new priests.



You forgot to add why some prayers are answered with a no, and Feud also said that some of the prayers they made for that case were answered with a yes.

I didn't understand what you meant exactly with the second phrase, but if you don't wish to join back in the conversation then I respect your wishes.
I know that a prayer not only soothes the one that makes it, it helps other people as well. I know that I pray for people I see in the road and I don't know. I'm not saying to show off and receive a "Well done" and such but to show that prayer can be directed to people you know and love and even unknown people and undirected asking for help for the whole world. It may be difficult to measure in an experiment, as we saw already but that doesn't change things. Maybe it was my mistake bringing up an ambivalent study. Maybe the study shows that undirected prayer helps everyone. I know that I have prayed for all (heart or not) patients and ask God to make everyone ok. But of course that wouldn't stand in a scientific court for eveidence. Mind you I am studying science as well, and I think that science and Church (you call it religion) do not contradict.

My sincere prayers go out for all you here.

oh, there back again!



True

Life struggles often lead to taking up a religion, or dropping one!.

Actually, eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, especially when they've been filtered by the media, theological purges, simple error, wishful thinking, delusion, or the influence of authority. Consider that when enough people believe a cult (Heaven's Gate) becomes a religion (Christianity, Mormonism, fill-in-the-blank). Cultists are generally considered as delusional or have deviant values, which changes once there is a critical mass of believers that forces societal acceptance.

Also, the belief of many people might be Truth but it certainly isn't truth. If truth were a democracy based on belief then, as had been believed for millennia, the earth would be flat and the sun would revolve around the earth. It is good thing that science set that issue straight, and it is too bad the church crispy fried a few deviants to prove their Truth was right.

Hydro

You are referring to the Journal of Reproductive Medicine study that proved that prayers from the US, Canada and Australia doubled the success of infertility treatments on patients in Korea (Cha/Wirth/Lobo). To date it is the only study in a peer reviewed journal that showed the efficacy of prayer.

Unfortunately it has since been debunked. First, the primary investigator (Wirth) was found to have a 20 year history of fraud and was sentenced to 5 years in federal prison. Since he designed and executed the study this is a problem. Second, the lead author (Lobo) admitting he knew nothing about the research and had only provided editorial assistance (hmmm – kind of dings his credibility) and could not vouch for the results or the data. He was reprimanded and disgraced by Columbia University for his error, and was instructed to remove his name from the study (which he did). The last author (Cha) withdrew from Columbia University, was found to be a word-for-word plagiarist in another article from a Korean journal, and in currently under investigation for practicing medicine in California without a license.

What is strange is that even though the authors are in Federal prison, have withdrawn in disgrace, or have had their careers blighted due to plagiarism and licensing problems the JRM still has not retracted the article. So, technically it is still a peer-reviewed study even if the torrent of criticism of it (flawed methods, data, fraud) have gone unanswered.

The Columbia prayer study is an excellent example of flawed and fraudulent science, and if it were retracted by the embarrassed but unrepentant JRM it would be an example on how the scientific method and peer review system is self correcting (even if it does have its errors).

Citations:
Miracle study flawed: Skeptical Inquirer, Sept/Oct 2004, 28(5), 25-31, www.csicop.org.si/2004-09/miracle-study.html
Researcher pulls name from study: NYT, 2004, Dec 4
Wirth indictment: Quackwatch web site, 2004, June 1
Third Strike for Columbia prayer study: Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 2007, 31(3), 19-20

P.S. – what is sad is that this study is now ‘on the net’ and is cited a proof of prayer. Even if the bogus study is retracted that tiny fact is unlikely to diminish the enthusiasm of those who want to show scientific evidence of the efficacy of prayer. Other studies (such as the previously cited STEP study) prove otherwise, but of course contrary evidence – or the massive weight of evidence against prayer - is ignored by prayer advocates.

I just find it sad that someone would not believe in SOME type of "afterlife" or God. The most depressing thing I can think of is that there is nothing beyond or better than the life you have now. Some would argue that "nothingness" after death is no problem, and I would venture to say those people have had a very tough life or are extremely wore out with the day to day grind of living. Claiming there is no God and nothing but blackness as your brain shuts down when you die is still faith. Its faith in nothing, and that is sad. Having belief that there is a God or an afterlife gives me incredible hope. It seems your life would be very empty and shallow not having that hope. It creates denial, hatred, rage, isolationism, extreme pride, intolerance and many other things. Life is hard and there are basically two paths to follow.
One, you choose to have faith, believe in something, greater than you, who has a plan for your life, and a plan for you after life. This tends to breed hope, positive outlooks, and an ability to cope with difficult times. You dont understand everything around you, but thats OK, you hold tight to your faith. AS a side note, faith in something that ISNT there hurts nothing in the end, after all its not there. Faith in nothing when something is there will surely lead to trouble.
Two, you choose to second path. Outrage at what happens to you, denial that someone greater than you would let this happen (how could they let it?!?). Funny enough this tends to lead to EXTREME intellectualism. Science is the end all be all answer. There is no God, only some rational explanation that hasnt been discovered yet. Blind dumb luck that energy somehow formed a body, with a thinking mind, has led us to the point we are at now. Some even consider death a blessing, they can be done with this world and enter oblivion. That is extremely disheartening to me. Feel free to flame, but hope placed in faith of something greater than myself and those around me on Earth seems a far better option than belief in nothing but what I can prove around me.

That is a different study. I was talking about the previous heart patient study which turned out to be ambivalent.

Yes, it is very depressing, most people can't and don't want to deal with this, they flee into religion.
However, as depressing as the lack of an afterlife is, it means one thing: We have to make sure that we and everyone else on this planet can enjoy our short, meaningless lives as much as possible.

The problem is that when some to most people "enjoy their life as much as possible" it is at the expense of someone else's, thus the cycle begins. Very prideful.

I didn't think that I was arguing, and if I was tehn I did so by accident (I've always thought or an argument as having hostile or aggressive feelings, I thought of this more as a discussoin).

I must say though that I find the line hillarious, "no offense or disrespect, but you creep me out". Thanks, that is the funniest thing I"ve read in a long while!   

"How many of YOUR prayers worked?" All of them were answered.

I have seen, heard, and felt God's work in my life and others'. Although you will undoubtedly brush it off as circumstantial or false, I know people who have been cured by prayer - I know a young man in our congregation who recovered from internal injuries just hours after a severe football injury. I know of a Nigerian pastor who was raised from the dead. I have felt God's influence on my life, sirs! I have seen many examples of God's actions in the world - all of which combine to ensure that I will never leave His service.

"YET" - Yet doesn't cut it. As I previously stated, saying "yet" implies faith - in this case, faith in an eventual answer IN DENIAL of the established laws of physics. Very basically, science has failed to give you the answer that you want; but you have not acknowledged this fact.

I guess it comes with speaking English only as second language. Glad I could liven up your day.

For me, 'to argue' means civil discussion using logical points (arguments). What you describe, I would call a fight or similar. But it's one of the instances where I find that I could make a much better and finer distinction in German. So, I boldly put forward the motion to move this argument to German!

*ducks and runs for cover'

This is interesting. In my opinion, it is sophistry and lacking in argument. This makes some assertions that cannot be proven. It's not like you're proving that one equals one. Belief is not like Euclidian geometry. I could continue to add plausible possibilities to Gödel's theorems. *Ahem*:
2c) a higher being only exists on Wednesdays at 15:15:37.26 Z time zone
iii) Your petitions were not received because your watch is off by 30 seconds and your calendar is grossly inaccurate, giving you the false impression that there is no higher being, by the way you missed her birthday and she is very upset with you. Boy are you in trouble.
I'm not saying if there is or isn't anything. I am just thinking about the weakness of this particular argument.

Allow me to cite an opposite argument. After the 'Davinci Code' movie came out and was popularized, the religious leader of the institution I attend on the day of worship posed the following argument: The Iliad is accepted by scholars as the original intent and work of Homer due to the fact that over 600 manuscripts of the Iliad dated to be written within 600 to 1000 years of his death exist and they all concur. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that what we have today is the original intent of Homer’s work. Over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament dated to be within 200 to 400 years of the various authors deaths and they all concur. Therefore it is reasonable to accept the same about the New Testament, and it is the truth, therefore Jesus is our God and savior. This is also sophistry and makes an unreasonable leap. It would be like stating there are over 150 million copies of (Insert your favorite work of fiction) printed by several publishers throughout the world, and they concur, therefore it is the truth, therefore (insert fictional character’s name) is…
Again I am not expressing a particular belief. This argument demonstrates the literary accuracy of the New Testament writings. However, I do not see how this establishes the truth.



Hear! Hear! People would be surprised to discover the real anthropological roots of western religious beliefs. Be careful in your investigations as the truth can be disconcerting.

One fellow once taught that organized religion was not necessary to love and worship God, so they put him in a hair shirt and locked him in a tower.

Another fellow oppressed his people mercilessly, and then decided to lead them to freedom under new laws.

Another fellow said we are all brothers and proceeded to kill and enslave all others who didn’t agree.

And one came along and said we should all just be decent to one another, so they nailed him to a tree (misquoting Douglas Adams).

I say that free will is proof of the existence of God.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says jangerel, "free will is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have happened by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Logic and belief are not entirely compatible. They do not rule each other. When you look for an electron within its shell, illogically, it is always where you believe it will be. There are many things yet to be understood. Maybe one day we’ll get a Tech victory?

Dystopic I love your contributions thus far.

Why would not having belief result from a tough day? Or the grind of living? And why is not having belief that sad? I find it very satisfying to say “I don’t know” to some the big questions, but also love the beauty that is around me, wonder at the vastness and complexity of the universe, work to improve the society in which I live and help those around me, and do my best to look for answers. I find it sad that some people who don’t have answers retreat to a Black Box called mysticism and then stop looking for answers or are content – or combative in defending – with Truth that are clearly wrong.

I would hardly call this a shallow life filled with rage and intolerance. Saying “I Don’t Know” and looking for answers is not pride, nor is it denial – to me this is the ultimate in humility. For me the Black Box of religion is pride (I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG) and denial (creationism, ID, etc).



Faith in Truth that blinds you to truth is likely to cause problems. And faith in a false Truth can certainly hurt, depending on the circumstances.



No, no flames. Discourse so far has been civil and enlightening, and I really appreciate the level headed and polite discussions.

Perhaps my general philosophy (such as it is) can be summed up by Carl Sagan’s well known phrase: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For me this goes for both science and religion – everything, really. If someone tells me they have an omniscient, omnipotent pink dragon in their garage then I’m likely to ask for some proof. If someone tells me they have developed Cold Fusion then, well, they’d better demonstrate they can do it. I’m not likely to take their word for it, and my level of skepticism increases with the magnitude of the claim. Religion makes an enormous number of amazing, unsubstantiated and inherently un-provable claims and claims that are just plain false, so I am pretty darn skeptical.

Science certainly doesn’t have all the answers, but so far it has been pretty good at ferreting out how our environment works – certainly better than the various religious texts written and edited by tribal or medieval peoples who thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. For all its flaws the scientific method is self correcting. A given Truth, by definition, is immutable (unless it is edited by various Councils of Nicaea, a new religious faction, or an upcoming cult).

So for me the universe isn’t blind luck, or a terrifying one way trip to oblivion. What I know is that my genes have been around for hundreds of millions of years and will live on, that whatever understanding I have will be built upon by others (unless humans exterminate ourselves), and that my good works will be my legacy. And beyond that I’m perfectly happy to say “I don’t know”.

You guys do know that this isn't the place to be discussing religious topics?

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Its interesting to hear (not the first or last time for me) someone say that a belief in no afterlife (I'll let the no god thing slide) is sad or disturbing to them and that it promotes the ills of society and is also a product of those ills. I find it can have the opposite effect just as reasonably. If you believe that this is your only shot and that the most important thing you can do here on this big blue rock is to raise your children to do better than you and to leave a good legacy so that humanity will be better off from having you around, what you believe about what happens after you die seems irrelevant. If on the other hand you believe the world or even the entire physical universe is inherently flawed and that all physical desires are meant to be suppressed then I can understand why you might think death and what happens after are your only shot at true happiness. But you still need to prove to me that the physical world is flawed. Just because everyone else says sex without babies is evil and if I fornicate (have sex with someone without a ritual to a deity saying we will never have sex with anyone else) I am up the brown river without a paddle in the afterlife doesn't convince me of it.
Ahh the problem of evil is an interesting side note here as well. Its a word that gets tossed around a lot with little explanation. Here is my argument that got me kicked out of a sunday school class when I was 16. If god is infinitely good and creator of all then did he create evil and if so is evil good? Isn't satan one of gods angels and since humanity was given free will by god and the angels where not then wasn't Satan just doing what god made him do? Needless to say after studying the origins of the devil I found my own answers but my Sunday school teacher was just angry that I would ask such a heretical question in the first place.

Prayer is an interesting subject. I like to think of it as magic. What is the difference between a voodoo practitioner sacrificing a chicken to a Loa in order to heal a sick friend and an old lady praying in church for the same reason? Who can claim to have the most authority? If the sick friend gets better can either of them say it was because of their prayer or ritual and not the others? If a man goes to a hospital for lesions on his lungs (most likely cancer) and his wife who is a witch casts a spell for him to heal while at the same time his family prays that he will die peacefully since they believe it to be his time to go, who gets answered? Just so happens the man in question gets his tests done again before scheduling a biopsy surgery and the lesions are gone. The doctor tells him this is one in a million but once in a blue moon this happens. Was it god? Was it the will to live? Was it the witchcraft? Point is no one can say for sure and faith can be equally applied to all these people. The man had faith he would live, the witch had faith her pagan gods would help, the family had faith that god cared. For anyone to value their faith above any other type is pretty egotistical really and once faith gets to the point that you disregard the faith of others as being equally effective to your own you aren't talking about faith so much as you are talking about the superiority of your beleifs over those of another.

that's really interesting stuff, and i agree with your later points. and yeah, hebrew and "the big three" as you put it, aren't my strongest suit (i've a good smattering of sanskrit vocabulary though).



i also think there's something to be said for living on through your contributions to the planet. i don't necessarily mean nobel peace prize material, but raising decent children, being an example of virture to your fellow people, and so on.

personally, some accounts of heaven i've encountered aren't all that appealing to me. a friend of mine has menonite grandparents, and they believe that when you go to heaven you lose all memory from earth, to "free you from the sorrow of remembered those who've gone to hell." "how morbid," is my reaction. seriously, eternal paradise sounds like eternal boredom to me. i'll take life and the problems i have to solve in it any day, because (to speak metaphysically) that's the only thing that makes my soul stronger. which is more selfish and egocentric: wanting to better or even perfect yourself, or wanting to last on for eternity?

(i do use words like heaven, damnable, sin and god in my speech and argumentation; i'm one of those people who views 'god' as a concept).



well, i've never claimed there is no god, but i don't believe in one. i have hope, and it's because i believe in people. i don't believe i have denial about anything; i have no hatred or anger, i'm very outgoing, and try at least to be humble and i've very patient with other people.

maybe your life would be very empty and shallow; if you need to believe in god to bring those virtues out of yourself, then i could never fault your belief. and IF there is a god, and, as others (Feud?) have said he's like the ultimate parent, would he ultimately want his children to strike out on their own, solve their own problems, and find their virtues in themselves-- instead of eternally suckling the teet? well, maybe "god's plan" as a form of parenting is too mystical for we mere mortals to understand at all; maybe good human parenting wasn't made in the image of god.

sometimes all the talk about 'faith in god's plan' seems a little much. i mean, if you really have faith in god's plan, and god is omniscient and omnipotent, then non-believers are part of god's plan too. maybe he wan't you to convert all of us and show us the light; maybe he wants you to accept that some people will believe differently than you. maybe different-believers were put here for a purpose and are fulfilling a part of god's will you can't perceive. who's to say? i'm not trying to say anyone in here's tried to convert anyone else in here, but to 'worry about their souls' seems contra 'having faith in god's plan.'

a lot of things about some forms of christianity really elude me. i don't understand how a loving and graceful god could requirethe blood sacrifice of his only son in order to fogive the sins of his other, uh, creations. i don't understand how a benevolent god could want his people living in fear.

here's an example of a god-concept i can better appriciate:



-written by Marianne Williamson and first recited by Nelson Mandela in his inagural speech.