Revelation 21:8, But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” I’m quoting from the RSV; the KJV says, “Believe not and thou shalt be damned.”
Most Jewish prayers are either spoken or sung out loud. And Judaism is different form the Christian POV you seem to be coming from - you don’t have to believe in God to be considered a Jew, and prayer is done mainly for the benefit of the community, not for the Almighty. Prayer also has cultural significance beyond religion, and many people will pray under certain circumstances because that’s what Jews do.
My father-in-law is a diehard atheist, but whenever he comes to my house for Friday night dinner, he sings along and says amen to my Kiddush. I know he doesn’t believe in it, and he knows I know, and I don’t really care: he’s doing it out of respect for me. Neither of us see it as hypocritical at all. After all, when I’m at his house for the Sabbath, I don’t insist on him saying a prayer.
You do realize that you’re arguing with me about my opinion, right? Not any kind of fact, or conclusion about the OP? I usually avoid religious discussions because of the “I know I am right” factor, but as long as you understand that every time I reply to you I am merely expounding on my opinions/beliefs, let’s proceed:
I think it’s inconsistent to doubt something’s existence while simultaneously believing that you can’t possibly know whether it exists. If you can’t ever know, you can’t ever know. Period. Are humans capable of such inconsistency? Of course. I just happen to not like the fact that the ‘agnostic’ label gets applied so liberally.
Now, regarding your theist friends who agree that the existence of God is unknowable: are you sure that it’s God’s existence they’re talking about, and not God’s nature? The belief that God’s nature is unknowable is pretty widely held. Either you are a little confused, or your friends are. 
Belief is not “based” on faith, my friend: they are the same thing. If there were facts or proof to back any of this up, what we’d have would be knowledge, not belief. Knowledge without evidence is belief/faith.
You are right, there are absolutely different cultural approaches to prayer. The OP specified Christianity, even explicitly the Christian God, so I assumed that was the context for this thread. My only experience has been with Christianity, so I in no way can speak to the idea of prayer in other religions/cultures.
That’s great, I’m glad you guys have that all worked out. But I didn’t mean to imply that saying a prayer without believing in the words makes other people hypocrites, only that I think it would make me feel like one. Again, in the Christian context.
That makes no sense at all, Misnomer.
I do realize that we argue about opinions here in Great Debates; why you feel you need to remind me of this, I have no idea.
I don’t believe that pink unicorns live on the bottom of the oceans floor. I simultaneously believe that it would never be possible to for me to know if I’m correct about their non-existence. What do you find inconsistent about this?
Yes, I’m sure. They believe that God exists but that knowing that He exists is not possible. Again, I don’t see what the inconsistancy is. I think its a rather normal, healthy outlook. If a theist told me he not only believes God exists and knows it, I would think of him as not only being arrogant but strange.
No, belief and faith are not the same thing. I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. Since this belief is based on knowledge and empirical evidence it is not considered faith. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I’d tell you to check your dictionary, but since you don’t approve of other definitions of agnostic except for your own, I doubt Daniel Webster would sway you. BTW, adding the arrogant, I’m so much wiser than you, “my friend” line is not very becoming.
Oh I don’t know. But everytime I raise my head to the ceiling and speak, “please god make it stop”, after an embarrassing situation on the toilet, it usually does stop. I’m agnostic myself, but maybe there is a little thiest in me after all?
Well, this is frustrating. I’m a writer, so being able to make sense with words is kind of my thing, but apparently I’m not doing too well with this theoretical stuff. I’m sorry if it’s not making sense to anyone else, but I swear it’s making sense in my head.
I really can’t think of a clearer way to say it: I cannot imagine simultaneously believing that it’s impossible to know something and having an opinion on the thing that I can’t know. If I cannot ever know whether God exists, how can I lean either way? How can I believe both “I think God exists” AND “man cannot ever know if God exists?” Perhaps it’s a flaw in my logic, or just a personal quirk, but that makes no sense to me.
I dunno, there was just something in your earlier post that made me wonder if you thought this was a ‘winnable’ thing. If I was wrong, I’m sorry.
Well, if you believe that it would never be possible for anyone to know if they exist, what’s the point in either doubting or believing in their existence? How is that NOT inconsistent? I’ve already acknowledged that people can hold seemingly opposite beliefs simultaneously, and you may not agree that those two beliefs are opposite. I do.
Again, I’m frustrated that I’m not doing better at explaining my point. And now I’m going to quote you out of order:
That’s funny, because ‘my’ definiton of agnostic happens to be Webster’s: “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.” The broader meaning is, in fact, the secondary meaning.
Our pal Webster lists them as synonyms, and provides this clarification: “BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>.” Faith is the stronger word, but it is the same as belief: your example of the sun coming up is not the same kind of “belief” we were talking about with your friends, because you have evidence that the sun comes up every morning. When it comes to the existence of a God, I maintain that belief and faith are the same thing.
Ok, now that you’ve clarified, I can address this better: as I said before, knowledge without proof is belief. They believe that God exists, which means that part of them – their heart, soul, etc. – knows that God exists. They have faith in Him, but they also believe that empirical proof of God’s existence is impossible. There is no contradiction here, merely a confusion (on both our parts) of how we are using the words “know” and “knowledge.” You can know something (faith, belief, intuition, etc.) without knowing it factually or scientifically.
In all seriousness, I did not mean that in an arrogant or condescending way. I never use the words “my friend” that way – I would have called you “junior” or something if that were my intent. Debates like this have the potential to get ugly, and throwing in “my friend” was an attempt on my part to keep the tone of our exchanges from being so deadly serious. OTOH, I found your dictionary challenge to be quite arrogant, but I have deliberately avoided using the ‘rolleyes’ or ‘putz’ smilies because I see no need for this to get personal. We disagree, and I may never be able to adequately explain what the hell I’m talking about, but there’s no reason for us to descend into schoolyard crap, right?
So, you’re saying we shouldn’t ponder the unknowable? Do you know that God exists? If my theist friends beleive God exists but don’t know it, do you think that thier belief would have no point?
Knowlege without proof may be belief, but you can’t read that backwards and say belief without proof is knowledge. Belief in God does not mean that any part of them knows that He exists. I believe in extraterrestrial life but no part of me knows that there is.
You found my dictionary challenge to be arrogant when you say things like this:
“First, a mild reprimand for using ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic’ as synonyms.” (which no one did) and this: “it’s my thinking that you aren’t an agnostic any more than you are an atheist.)”? Please. You are still arrogant enough to read only the dictionary definitions which suit you. Look at all the definitions for belief and faith and it is pretty obvious that they are not to be used interchangably.
If I asked a theist how they could believe that God exists and his reply back to me was “faith”, would you say, “that’s silly, belief and faith are the same thing”?
Pondering the unknowable is different from coming to a conclusion (i.e. forming a belief) about it.
Holy nonsequiturs, Batman…where did that come from? I’m an agnostic, so I don’t know jack shit about God’s existence. I have faith, however, in the idea that any truth in that regard is unknowable.
See, I don’t agree that theists don’t know – on some level – that God exists.
Yes, it does work backwards. Again, we’re back to confusion over the use of the word “knowledge:” there is the kind of knowledge that comes from intuition, faith, etc., and the kind of knowledge that comes from scientific proof. Maybe it would help if I clarify, using intuition as an example: Intuition without proof is belief, and belief without proof is intuition.
The subject of this thread is “What does God think of prayers from atheists,” but the OP claims to be agnostic. How is that not using them as synonyms?
How on earth was that arrogant? And why are you using it to defend yourself when neither of the above comments were directed at you?
Your whole “arrogance” diatribe seems a bit excessive, actually. I was making a genuine attempt at keeping this civil, and you flushed it down the toilet. You’ve also started to pick and choose which of my rebuttals you reply to, ignoring entire arguments. THIS is the point where debates start going quickly downhill: if you continue to reply to me, I ask that you please do so reasonably and accurately.
I wouldn’t say anything, actually, because the conversation did not involve me. But do I think that “faith” is not an acceptable reason for “belief?” Yep. It’s a setup for some nice circular logic: “Why do you believe?” “Faith.” “Why do you have faith?” “Because I believe.”
Yes, pondering the unkowable is different from the conclusion. Thanks again for stating the obvious. My respose was to your quote, “Well, if you believe that it would never be possible for anyone to know if they exist, what’s the point in either doubting or believing in their existence?” I can’t believe that you think it is useless to either doubt something or believe in something if you can’t ever be sure it exists.
Wait a minute; you’re agnostic? According to your favorite definition of agnostic, “someone who believes that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable”, you believe that one could never know if God exists. A quote of yours: “Well, if you believe that it would never be possible for anyone to know if they exist, what’s the point in either doubting or believing in their existence?” Do you see the contradiction?
So you don’t believe the theists that say they believe in God but don’t know He exists? No, you’re not arrogant.
Wow! You think if you believe in something, but have no proof, you have knowledge. That is unbelievable!
How is that using them as synonyms? The OP was asking what God thinks of prayers from atheists and threw in that he himself, is agnostic. I think its a broad leap to assume he thinks they’re one in the same.
You don’t think its arrogant to tell someone who proclaims he is agnostic that it is your thinking that he’s not? Okay. I wasn’t using anything to defend myself. You claimed you didn’t think you were coming off as arrogant and I showed you why I thought you were.
You’re kidding me, right? No one has thought you to be arrogant before me? You would like to be in control of which statements of yours I post rebuttals to? Yes Sir!
… and that might as well have been me answering, too (except it’s the other way around in our family - I say the prayers when we go to my parents’ for Friday night). As Alessan already said, “prayer” in Judaism is far more of a community activity than a personal dialog with god.
In fact, I do take my children to schul on the High Holy Holidays (Rosh hashana and Yom Kippur). The Jewish prayer book is part of our cultural heritage, and I want my children to know what it is they disbelieve in (at least I, pesonally, hope so! ;j)
And if we can show them what Mass looks like in a cathedral, the least we can do is show them what the prayers born of their own culture look like, too!
None of this is either here or there in relation to actual belief in god. It’s like asking an actor in a play whether they believe in the lines they are speaking - sure, they may “get in” to the character in order to play the part better, but few of them actually become the character they are portraying. I see prayer much in the same way.
Dani
Ok, x-ray, now you’re just starting to rave. I’ll give this one more shot:
To either doubt or believe in something, you must have come to a conclusion about it. How is that the same as just thinking about it? I frequently think about whether ghosts exist, but I have not come to a conclusion as to whether I believe or doubt that they exist. However, I wouldn’t bother thinking about them at all if I believed that I could never come to any conclusion. Get it?
Um, no, I don’t.
It’s not your friends who I disbelieve, it is you. I don’t believe that your representation of their opinion is accurate, because you refuse to acknowledge that I’m talking about two different types of “knowing” something – despite the fact that I have carefully explained it to you more than once, and have admitted that it’s a confusion we both contributed to.
Again, different types of knowledge. Why do you persist in deliberately misunderstanding me?
The OP mentioned atheists in the subject line, but then the entire example was based on the action of an agnostic. I don’t think it’s such a broad leap. When dalej42 says “Does the Christian God reject prayer from the unfaithful as the Old Testament says? I am an agnostic, but I could not turn down a chance to help those who might be in need by the hurricane,” it seems pretty clear to me that the ‘unfaithful’ being mentioned is him/herself, and not some random Joe Atheist.
I said, “If you believe that praying for someone could be of any “help,” you are a theist. (And, while there are all sorts of shades of gray where agnosticism is concerned, it’s my thinking that you aren’t an agnostic any more than you are an atheist.)” The whole “I don’t think you’re an agnostic” thing hangs on a big IF statement, which the OP has never returned to dispute or clarify. It would have been arrogant to say “You, sir, are no agnostic!” but that was neither my message nor my intent.
I did no such thing. When you accused me of arrogance because of the “my friend” comment, I explained that I truly didn’t mean it that way. I never said it didn’t come across that way, simply that I wasn’t intending any arrogance when I wrote it.
Yes, that would be nice, thank you. :rolleyes:
Once again, you have completely missed my point: all I’m saying is that you seem to have begun to fixate on name-calling instead of the actual debate.
That’s “Yes Ma’am!”
Atheists dont pray. If they prayed, they would not be atheists.
I did not say that the vocal people who hold that belief could not find snippets of scripture to support their view. I said that the belief that only those who believe can be saved from damnation is not a “standard Christian belief.”
You will not find that belief espoused by Orthodox, Catholics, the Anglican Communion, (most) Lutherans (I would not put it past the Missouri Synod), Presbyterians, most Methodists, or even some Baptists, based on alternative readings (and other passages) of Scripture. And adding up those groups’ numbers, I can assert without fear of contradiction that I have covered the majority of Christians. Heck, as has been noted on several occasions on this board, the Catholic church explicitly denies the interpretation that only believers are saved.
.
John Carter of Mars made a similar observation in post #5 of this thread. While accepting the general statement, I have posed a response in post #8. Did you happen to skip over those two posts? Or do you think by simply repeating the point it becomes more true?