Prayer=weakness

Intrepid wrote:

You seem to equate prayer with stupidity. You are wrong. Do you think that common sense is absent to those who pray? It is one thing to pray and another to recognize the answer to that prayer.

I'm not attempting to equate prayer with stupidity, thus the use of the word 'when' in the statement 'when people turn to prayer to the detriment. . .'

If you weren't so anxious to find insult where none is intended perhaps you would have noted that for yourself.

When people turn to prayer to the detriment of using common sense, prayer leads to harm. Simple as that.

I'm the other one wrote:

And you say...but I've read the bible.

And I say...

But you don't know God.

Sure I do. I know him as well as I know frodo, aragorn and samwise.
Better, perhaps because I only read THOSE books once!

Doktor S wrote:

I'm the other one wrote:

And you say...but I've read the bible.

And I say...

But you don't know God.

Sure I do. I know him as well as I know frodo, aragorn and samwise.
Better, perhaps because I only read THOSE books once!

Just bringing this up wondering how do you think you know him Dok?

How?

I was pretty much told not to argue with you when I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

What is it you think you do repeatedly in this forum? Yes, you know your bible. My answer to you would have to be to this...

Not the most important part of it. You admitted you never received anything important such as a message thru it. This is not 'knowing' your bible...many Christians I'm sure could agree on that.

So....how can you know prayer, if it works or not? How can you know any of these things when it's obvious you don't. Don't say I don't know what the hell I'm talking about on this subject.

You certainly 'try' to defend yourself on knowing him, I just can't see how.

Don't say I don't know what the hell I'm talking about on this subject.

Actually, that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you read the bible, and study it to a certain level it is safe to claim you 'know' it. There is no other definition applicable to 'knowing your bible'.

Unless of course your bible has come to you after a night of drunken revelry and had it's way with you.

Quote:

Actually, that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you read the bible, and study it to a certain level it is safe to claim you 'know' it. There is no other definition applicable to 'knowing your bible'.

Unless of course your bible has come to you after a night of drunken revelry and had it's way with you.

Unless of course your bible has come to you after a night of drunken revelry and had it's way with you.

Humm
Drugs provide an escape into fantasy
Religion provides an escape into fantasy.

Drugs provides a reason, a crutch, to deal with everyday life
Religion provides a reason, a crutch, to deal with everyday life

Drugs offer a sense of comradery and 'fellowship' with other drug users.
Religion offer a sense of comradery and 'fellowship' with other religion users.

Drugs changes the way you think and act.
Religion changes the way you think and act.

Drugs stifle thinking
Religion stifles thinking.

Nope...nothing in common whatsoever....

Drugs provide an escape into fantasy

Drugs provides a reason, a crutch, to deal with everyday life

Drugs changes the way you think and act

Drugs stifle thinking

Doktor S wrote:

Humm
Drugs provide an escape into fantasy
Religion provides an escape into fantasy.

Drugs provides a reason, a crutch, to deal with everyday life
Religion provides a reason, a crutch, to deal with everyday life

Drugs offer a sense of comradery and 'fellowship' with other drug users.
Religion offer a sense of comradery and 'fellowship' with other religion users.

Drugs changes the way you think and act.
Religion changes the way you think and act.

Drugs stifle thinking
Religion stifles thinking.

Nope...nothing in common whatsoever....

That's a rather wide scythe you have there; if you are indeed categorizing all drugs, and by default all prayer, in the same swath (gotta have fun with mixed metaphors and contrasting analogies)

"Drugs provide an escape into fantasy" - true and drugs may provide a novel, creative and useful perspective.

"Drugs provides a reason, a crutch, to deal with everyday life" - true and drugs may provide a foundation to deal with everyday life without which some would be unable.

"Drugs changes the way you think and act" - true but drugs may change the way you think and act for the better.

"Drugs stifle thinking" - true but drugs may incite thinking.

Just bringing this up wondering how do you think you know him Dok?

How?

I was pretty much told not to argue with you when I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

What is it you think you do repeatedly in this forum? Yes, you know your bible. My answer to you would have to be to this...

Not the most important part of it. You admitted you never received anything important such as a message thru it. This is not 'knowing' your bible...many Christians I'm sure could agree on that.

I said you don't know God...how can you say you do? I'm just curious as to your answer to that one, please.

So....how can you know prayer, if it works or not? How can you know any of these things when it's obvious you don't. Don't say I don't know what the hell I'm talking about on this subject.

You certainly 'try' to defend yourself on knowing him, I just can't see how.

fresco wrote:

Doktor S,

This argument has at least three links besides those of "time" considerations in quantum physics.

1. Kant's reaction to (I think Hume's analysis) that there is no empirical definition of "causality" ...hence "causality" is a perceptual "a priori" imposed from within.

2. Piagets investigations of the development of the concept in children in which he argued that causality is an "epiphenomenon" of adult perceptual activity.

3. Non-dualist (or wholistic) moves in the life sciences by Varela and Capra, in which it is argued that "control" an anthropomorphic cognitive trait which precludes a "systems view" of interactive life. In such systems "events" become arbitrary segmentations of a subjective reality in the mind of the observers which precludes the "wider pictures".

(I have found that understanding of any of these points is a good basis for understanding QM.)

I am familiar with those arguments, however I find them unconvincing. What I would find convincing is an example of ANY event that has been shown to be without cause.
So far, to my knowledge, no such event has been recorded.

Well, according to some elvis is still alive.

That doesn't mean too much as the credit of this nebulous 'some' doesn't carry much if any weight.

The big bang could have just as easily have been a counterpoint to the last big crunch.

Dok, Can a ritual or magic be considered the same as prayer?