No.
praying to god will not stop global warming or in anyway save our environment. Moreover, praying to god will not stop world hunger, disease, wars or poverty. So, why should anyone, religious or non-religious pray?


This leads to the obvious, why should anyone follow religion in today's modern age? Don't get me wrong, its everyone personal choice and personal right to be religious or not. This is just a debate on prayer and religion. Why would one have to follow a religion? After all, gods not going to do anything for/to anybody in this life time. Look around you. I don't see god helping the just and punishing the bad. Its police officers who go after bad guys and doctors who save lives. Is it the promise of heaven in the after life? I can't imagine a god that wouldn't let me into heaven even though I lived a moral, good and just life, simply because I didn't follow a religion and yet, let a person who has lived a very bad life go to heaven because right before death he repents. Besides, which religion is right? According to a Jewish friend, The God of Israel will only save jews. Can the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist and Hindus all be Right? Even though each say their way is the only way of God?

Finally, if there is a god, maybe his ultimate expectation for us is that we stop praying to him for Strength, we stop praying to him for guidance, for protection, for salvation. We stop looking to god for the answers and to solve all our problems ourselves. Instead, of praying to god, we solve global warming ourselves. We stop world hunger, disease, wars and poverty ourselves. If religion is Gods teaching or what god wants from us, then the ultimate religion is NO religion. Were we simply take care of our selves and our planet. Then, hell would not be a place that god has to send us, it will be right here on earth, if we don't learn to take care of our selves and our environment.

Global Warming is the inevability and destiny so the world will end someday but you can pray for your souls and souls of others. God did not create religion it is man who created religion but God just wants us to be just spiritual.

religion is opium of the masses. Bhuddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism are all used by people to cope with pain and human suffering, offering hope to the hopeless.
So religion will disappear if the world is free of human suffering.

Yeah. Why does god wants us to worship him? Just because he create us? Then i should worship my parents too. (although i respect my parents, i dont worship them)

Why wouldnt god just let us do what we want?

just fear.

fear of uncertainty, fear of lonely, fear of mistake

so people start worshiping.

I used to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny etc. but never in God or alike lol

You're mixing up a lot of different arguments and different conclusions.

1) Praying to god does not help, because we don't see immediate effects of prayers (seems to be an argument against prayers)
- Right now I can't really see a way to counter this without running into bigger problems, so I guess you get a point for this one.

2) Why follow religion when god won't be doing any good in this life time? No helping the just or punishing the wicked. (argument against religion)
- Because he'll do plenty of good in the after life, and plenty of evil if you're not religious. I think the score says 1-1.

3) Its police officers who go after bad guys and doctors who save lives. Not god. (argument against religion/worship)
- Maybe god acts through them instead of around them. What they do is actually gods doing. 2-1 to the preachers.

4) I can't imagine a god that wouldn't let me into heaven even though I lived a moral, good and just life, simply because I didn't follow a religion and yet, let a person who has lived a very bad life go to heaven because right before death he repents. (argument against gods existence)
- Yeah, well plenty of other people can imagine such a god. The fact that god is not good does not prove that he doesn't exist. 3-1.

5) All religions can't be right, so all must be wrong. (argument against religion)
- That's a logical fallacy. In a room full of women not all could have given birth to a specific child, but that does not mean that none of them did. 4-1.

6) Maybe what god wants us to do is to not rely on god. (argument against prayer and religion)
- Eh, I don't think that's what it says in the Bible, but okay suppose that you're right. We will not rely on god, we'll stop our prayers, but that doesn't mean we have to stop believing in him or follow a religion. 5-1.

I'll give you the point on whether or not to pray. The rest don't seem to hold up on closer examination.

Prayer is a coping mechanism for those who can't handle reality, form my observations. And yea, prayer changes nothing. I saw a church a month ago with a big banner saying "Pray for Peace." I was thinking "How long have people been praying for peace??? It obviously isn't working."

I agree with Cumulus that proving the Christian God is a bad god by our terms doesn't disprove god. Luckily, the burden of proof doesn't lie with non-believers at all. The god hypothesis, by itself, gains 0 points. It has stayed this way and stagnant since it's creation thousands and thousands of years ago. Science, on the other hand, has progressed rapidly and has been progressing and uncovering secrets we never knew or once attributed to 'god(s).'

God will not save the environment because he only cares for human beings but God can heal.

http://www.johnofgod.com/

Um...that's like saying because I care for my newborn only, it's okay that I set afire it's crib.

That is not true God cares for all men of all ages. God hates the world he only likes to spare just the Human Beings of all ages and nations.

no prayer can not save our environment, just like it can't pay off my student loans or give me a new car

Prayer is not a coping mechanism ...
well, at least that was not the way it was intended.

In the living religion, meditation and prayers are used as tools for the person ...
to still the mind and release the spirit ...
In a way, to be reborn into the spirit ...
Cuz it is only when, in the spirit, .. can the person truly ...

Sorry, my mind digresses ...

Okay, can prayer save our environment?

Well, it doesn't hurt to have the general population quiet and just hoping for the best.
Bringing problems to the fore front of conciousness will make people think and maybe act for the better.
It starts with one and moves on to others ... building momentum.

I know "pray for peace" ... but during the WW's, peace did come???
Praying for the environment to get better .. will it???
I don't know ... I can only hope.
Wait a minute ... what good is hope? Something like prayers???
Ehh, I give up ... damn these meds .. can't think straight.

Why should God save our environment... He didn't ruin it, it's not His responsibility.
God doesn't listen to every prayer. If it's selfish or irresponsible, He's probably going to ignore it. It's pointless for us to ask God to reverse something that's mostly our fault to begin with.

Well I don't think you understood my analogy but pretty much humans can't survive without an environment: Earth. To protect the environment is to protect humans. Prayer is just wishful thinking---but the difference is that people think they are accomplishing something with prayer....making it deceptively useless.

You have to understand God or Christianity to be able to understand its analogy.

Saying to a friend, "Pray for our environment" or "Keep our environment in your prayers" .. isn't useless.
It helps one to keep the thoughts focused on a purpose.
Asking many people to do the same will make the thought a priority.

Sometimes things happen to change the world.
Maybe prayer alone didn't change it.
But, it certainly doesn't hurt.

Peace

Prayer, at best, raises morale. In the end, people's actions change things, as always. The only difference between prayer and hope is that people who pray actually think they're doing something for the cause by simply praying (God will fix it). All the while, those who merely have hope know consciously they are just wishfully hoping for something while doing nothing. Thus, prayer evokes much less intent to actually solve a problem and go forth. Those who hope will be more inclined to take action, knowing hope does nothing to change the outcome. There are just many problems with believing in supernatural things. It's akin to those who live life by reading their horoscopes....in my opinion, it's sad. But to them, it raises their morale. I'll take reality over fantasy any day. My opinion as a non-believer.

You're right. The points that have been racked up does nothing positive for the religious, it can only deflect the anti-religous. So far (in this thread) there have not been any strong arguments against believing, but that doesn't mean that there are strong arguments for believing. I'm agnostic and I'm still waiting for a conclusive argument that points one way or the other.

The main reason why I don't believe in god(s) is for the mere fact that I have no reason to. The concept is man's way in trying to figure out a simple solution to a complex question. Why don't you believe in pink unicorns in outer space? Has anyone given you strong arguments to not believe in pink unicorns in outer space as well? The inability to disprove something has absolutely no baring on it's existence or validity as a claim. This is why the burden of proof lies with those who make the claims. And these claims come from the same people who tend to believe in ghosts, karma, supernatural events, big foot, etc. They are already prone to believing in things they don't understand and attribute them to the simple unexplained-explained concepts. Or they were simply raised with it and have become desensitized to question it's validity.

I personally don't believe in god(s) but I also believe we have no means of knowing for certain how things came to be since we have no definitive knowledge of it.

I think your piece on hope Vs prayer was excellent.

Yes, you don't believe that he exists, as do I, but are you saying that you believe that he for a fact does not exist? There's a crucial difference. I'm saying something about my beliefs, but are you saying something about existence? I don't believe in pink unicorns in outer space, but I think that what you're really after is that I also believe, that there in fact are no pink unicorns in outer space. Is it because I have strong arguments against the existence of pink unicorns in outer space? Not really. If you push me against the wall, then I will admit that I actually don't know it for sure, but I think given my body of experience and knowledge, that it's unlikely that there are pink unicorns in space. I would actually not say that I know that there are no pink unicorns in outer space. All I can commit to is that I know that we don't know that there are.

I agree that the inability to disprove something doesn't make it true that it exists. But the inability to disprove existence should still make it possible that it exists. That's good enough for me. I don't go around thinking that pink unicorns run around in outer space. I have no reason to. But I also don't go around thinking that pink unicorns definately don't run around in outer space. Not if I'm pressed to be philosophical about it. In everyday conversations, yes, there are no unicorns. In a philosophical setting that requires 100% certainty, no, from all I know it's possible. It doesn't affect my day though.

In the case of pink unicorns, You are right.

Here the discussion is religion. Religion is both a powerful philosophy that can affect political action and a practical part of everyday life for many. Its easy to say unicorns don't exist in everyday life and plan life as such; NASA need not design satellites for the possibility of collision with unicorns - that saves a lot of money, time and labor. Yet, in a debate class, I can show that my opposition can't disprove the existence of unicorns. That's because the practical and philosophical aspects of 'unicorns exist' have no connection at all. But religion does, For example, some people go to church every day, talk to their pastures on virtually every situation that comes up in life. All around the world, everyday, decisions from the mundane to the life altering are done with religious influence. Turn it around and Its like people making all kinds of decisions based on the idea that unicorns exist. Lets not buy this house because it won't be covered by unicorn coliseum insurance or lets not go to that school because they don't believe in unicorns. total crazy,yes?

Simply put, the majority of people are going to religious groups, giving their money, spending their time, believing in the religions teachings, using this as a guiding light in everyday affairs. All based on the philosophy that this religion is the genuine teaching of God. Since religion is a ground shaking philosophy that affects the actions of the majority of people in their daily affairs, Religion cannot be disconnected into two halves like the pink unicorn example.

BTW. I do like your arguments. Even, if I desagree with some of them.

like small insects, bacteries and other micro organisms, we are maybe part of something different that we fail to see/experience
because we are limited to our 5 senses and the world we live in, and this is why the idea of God is an imaginary construction of the human mind...

This planet has gone through climate change several times already. The odds of this go round snuffing us out is as likely as it was the first couple thousand times.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that they are crazy, because most religious people think that they have reason to believe. They are not looking out for unicorns because they think it's possible that there are unicorns, they are looking out because they think there are unicorns. They spend a lot of time, energy and money preparing for what would happen if a unicorn would run into their house. You think it's crazy because there are no unicorns, but that's a belief they don't share with you.

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by disconnecting the theoretical and the practical. I think that both the existence of the unicorn and god have a practical implication, which could affect everyday life depending on how much importance it would have to people if they existed. I guess you're unhappy about people who practice religion in a situation where god is only a possiblity. From a practical point of view there are limits to what one can or should do in the face of a mere possibility, so I think there are ways to work those people.

Unhappy would not be the correct word since this is merely a debate. But your last sentences almost captures my point. I will try to rephrase your sentences to clarify my argument. But first lets define 'possible existence of God' to mean in a formal debate, the non-existence of God could not be established because it is impossible to prove the negative as mikekkk86 has argued.

I think its illogical for people who practice religion to make big choices on what one can or should do based on the mere possible existence of God.

Example; This really happened.
My ex-sister-in-law who was very religious died recently ( we weren't close so no condolences needed ) She had brain cancer in the stem. to be honest her chances were very slim. But she chose to 'be with God'. She wanted all the life support to be turned off. She asked her family to let her 'Go to God'. She died 5 hours after they shut off life support. Would she have lived if they did all the operations? I don't know, The doctors were talking about a 20% chance. But multiple brain surgery and procedures is a hell of a thing to go thru. She truly believed in the after life so for her the decision was simple.

But, what if she was wrong? What if there is no after life? After all, 20% is better than nothing if you got nothing to lose. If she didn't believe in the after life would she have tried all other options first? Those are big decisions to make based on our un-ability to prove God doesn't exist. To live or die, solely based on ones belief that God exist. Were does one get this firm belief that God exist? Religion.

I said :"I personally don't believe in god(s) but I also believe we have no means of knowing for certain how things came to be since we have no definitive knowledge of it."


Religion is a good crutch for many people in that it turns fear and lost hope into a positive. Is it no more psychologically addictive than those who take drugs to get by the day? To me, it let's them forget about the problems of their life and in turn makes them feel good. I can imagine why so many flock to religion and god(s).

Where does one get this firm belief that God exist?

During wartime, someone said, "..there are no atheist in a fox hole."
Sometimes the presence of death, idea that death is coming, will make one grasp at God.

It is that realization that a person is much more than logic or science.
We are made up of a few chemicals and water ... but we are so much more.

From a scientific point of view, humans are a marvel of engineering ...
But, there is something else that dwells inside of our shell.

And if one is lucky enough, the experiences we have .. will somehow let us see
that the universe holds more mystery than we can ever know.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, chiuchimu,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Btw: I don't ask you to believe in God.
Only ask you to believe in yourself.

Prayer only benefits those who believe, as for non believers it's nothing more then just empty words and wast of time. Of course people can pray/hope for global warming etc...does it male a difference? Depends how one strongly believes behind their prayers/words IMO. Some people always need physical evidence/proof to believe in something, and most of time it's those same people who don't believe in miracles.

I think this proves that people think if they pray hard enough, it will come true. People with hope, at the least, know their hoping is accomplishing nothing but happy thoughts. Action is required. As a non-believer, this is one and many problems I see with religion.

But first she has to think of god as only a possibility. In that situation she thought of religous teachings as more than just possibly true, she thought that they were actually true, and as such I can't find a reason to fault her decision. By the way, if all life support were turned off on her request, then it amounts to suicide right? I hope she's not catholic.
I still think that we can come a long way by just showing that there is no positive proof about god. In that case she would probably have thought a little longer or harder before making her decision. If she then still chooses to bet on god, then that's her decision.
If that conclusion isn't satisfying then work out an argument that actually disproves god's existence. I'll check it out when you have one.

I have looked at the group of arguments that can be called the 'arguments from evil'. I think that they convincingly disprove the existence of a god that is almighty, omniscient and morally boundless. That doesn't help us much though, because people can just give up on one of those traits and believe in a slightly altered argument-from-evil-proof god. It's pretty clear that the god from the Bible is very far from being a morally superior being. If god is only almighty, omniscient and not always moral, then I can't see how to disprove his existence yet. But if I can just shoot down arguments that tries to prove his existence, then that should be good enough to prevent most people from following religions blindly.


So you don't believe in god, but you also think that it's a question that can never be resolved?

Agnostic atheism, also called Atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.

Individuals identifying as agnostic atheists may justify their position by reference to epistemology, theory of justification or Occam's razor.

Obviously, I never be able to do this or the pink unicorn.
Also, in today's world, most religion affects only the believer not the bystander so its me that's really meddling. But, we must not forget the passed when religion did play a major part in changing bystanders lives( The Holy Wars). Even today, lurking out their is Terrorist. Do they have the RIGHT to do there killing? because according to them, it is the WILL of God.

That's a can of worms I don't want to open.

prayer? we got a better chance of captain planet saving tha environment

Turning off the respiratory and life support system is not suicide and it happens many times especially when the patient has no money to pay the hospital bills knowing that he or she will die anyway and that is just giving herself to the hands of God and if God wanted her to live longer, so be it. What is suicide is Euthanasia where the doctor will give lethal drugs to the patient to let her die.

What is more evil is harvesting organs of others to make another person live longer.

My Aunt had cancer before and the doctor told her that she is going to live for 2 years and the doctor advised her to have surgery and chemoteraphy but she refused because it is very expensive and stressful so my Aunt went to a faith healer instead and gave herself to God and the healer performed invisible surgery and she went back to the doctor and told her that her cancer was gone so she still lives until today.

My friend has pacreatic cancer and the doctor adviced him to have surgery, chemoterapy, and radiation treatment and he also refused and told me that it is up to God for how long will he live if and he dies tomorrow or 10 years after so be it.

I wouldn't really call it agnosticism, but rather skepticism. As an agnostic I think it is not ruled out that we can get an answer, only that we actually have an answer, whereas skepticism rules that we don't have one and will never get one.
I think that if you're in the agnostic camp, then you believe in neither, but leave the possiblities open whether or not there is a god or there isn't. I think the groups would look like this:

1) theism - god exists and we can know it
2) skepticist theism - god exists but we can never know it for sure/it's unprovable
3) agnosticism - at the moment it's unclear whether or not god exists or doesn't
4) skepticism - it's unclear and we will never find out
5) atheism - god does not exist and we can know this
6) skepticist atheism - god does not exist but we can never know it for sure/it's unprovable

avisitor and martin-nuke probably belong in 1), I belong in 3) and you (mikekk86) and Chiuchimu seem to belong in 6). I think that if you're already a skepticist then no epistemic tools can help to justify your believing or disbelieving in god. Aside from that Occam's razor is useful in science, but not infallible or truth-guaranteeing.


No, I don't think they have the right to kill. But here we are talking about their actions and not their beliefs, and this might sound like a superficial dividing line, but at least here we have something to say, because the people they kill are us. It affects us directly and profoundly, and we have the right to criticize and oppose such actions. As long as their beliefs only affect themselves, as in a personal belief in god, it's hard for me get off my chair. When it affects others, especially against their will, it's a different matter. I opened the can a little but let's close it again shall we?

Even if we'll never be able to disprove god, which I don't think yet, we can still use arguments to show some limit to what people should do based on a possibility.


If she doesn't have the money to pay and others switch it off, then it's not the same situation. If she could live longer, but decides from her own free will that she would not, then how is it not suicide? Rather your arguments seems to be that it depends on the motives of the person who decides to die. If it's to 'give yourself to the hands of God' it's okay, but if it's to escape the pain of life it's not okay.

Here's a few paragraphs which help explain my agnostic atheism quite well: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

It shows how agnosticsm is not a third way in comparison to atheism and theism. Rather it works with the terms simultaneously. I have personally found out that the vast majority of people, and I don't blame them, do not quite understand the meaning of the words (agnostic & atheist). Mainly ever since I decided to coin agnostic atheist as a sort of label for myself a couple years ago.

I'd write about it myself but this person does a good job and I need to get ready for my first day of school!

I looked at your link and researched a little more by checking out the definition in wikipedia, in my dictionary, a normal encyclopaedia and a philosophical encyclopaedia. They all agree with your definition, so - much to my surprise - I have misunderstood the concept for many years now. Agnosticism is the same as skepticism: the belief that we don't know and will never know.

However I have to disagree with this (from your link):

Belief and absence of belief does not exhaust all of the possibilities. Suppose we had to guess whether or not a picture of Jesus was inside a sealed box that we can't see through. Some would maybe say that there is, some would say that there isn't, and some would just say that we don't know, that both options are possible. The same can be said about whether or not God exists. I can't see why the author would think that there are only two options. There is belief, denial and absence of belief. Absence of belief does not entail skepticism. We can find out by opening the box.

The groupings will look like this then:

1) Theism - belief in God and we can know it for sure
2) agnostic theism - belief in God but we can never know
3) atheism (weak atheism?) - absence of belief
4) agnostic atheism (weak atheism?) - absence of belief and we can never know
5) no name (strong atheism?) - denial of God's existence
6) agnostic no name (strong atheism?) - denial of God's existence, but we can never know

If atheism is really much 'softer' on it's claims then it belongs in the middle. That's not how I used to understand it though. Well, call it whatever you like as long as I know where we stand. martin-nuke and avisitor still belong in 1), I'm apparently simply an atheist, and you (mikekk86) and Chiuchimu are agnostic atheists 4). It's a little weird for me, and 2) and 6) are unsustainable and should collapse in 4). So there are really 4 options and not just 2. I learned something today.

I agree. There are even more reasons they don't have the right to kill.
However, lets keep the can closed.

The doctor stated that she will have 20% chance of survival after the brain cancer operation which is a very slim margin so it is not still suicide if she decided not to go through the operation and it is not still suicide because the life support system was just turned off and if she didn't go to the hospital she will be dead anyway the life support system just extended her life not save her life.

So refusing to get treatment is not the same as actively seeking death? I think that's a possible way to divide things. She doesn't want to die, she just doesn't want the treatment. It would depend on what her desire at the time was for us to know whether or not it was suicide, and I think that there's a good argument for the possibility that her desire was not suicidal. Refusing the brain operation was not a suicidal decision.

Edit: You know what? I don't really feel like arguing about this. I'll just leave the matters here.