Prayer=weakness

Quote:

If you are going to try and assess the intent and sincerity of prayers, (or any internalized intentions for that matter) then all bets are off. In that case the argument is wholly subjective and can be argued any way one chooses and we float right into Sophistry / Logical Fallacies. You might as well then say anyone who is successful at anything who prays is insincere in their prayers.

Naw, you missed the point. I am talking about those that profess religion, but never pray at all, because their 'religion' isn't a religion at all, but rather background noise that they haven't really investigated.

Quote:

Check out my text as I never said "more successful" you did. I do not need to make that assertion to make my argument. All I need to show is that there are musicians that pray that are "successful". Further I don't feel this point must stand without evidence and do and provide such; and more if needed.

I never argued this point to begin with. Where was it said people that pray can't be successful at anything?
Do you believe all success is earned?

Please refrain from building of strawmen. Stick to refuting arguments I actually make.

And it's spelled LaVey.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Dok I must commend you on this if it is really how you live your life. (no sarcasm intended) I lived a long time believing exactly this and I wasn't fairing well with it at all.

It is indeed.
Was it taking responsibility for yourself that you had a hard time with...orrr..?

Quote:

hmmmm... now this I would have to disagree with. I have seen the power of prayer work in my own life. Yeah, I can hear it now... Prove it hep... prove it... right? You show me how to prove it to you and I will gladly oblige that request... until then... there's not much I can do... So I guess it remains a mystery to some... (or else... what is it... me and my "imaginary friend" can just skip off into the sunset? LOL) ok sorry, moving on...

Have you ever considered that power may originate within you, and not 'out there' somewhere?

Quote:

Well... I have found quite the opposite true in my own life. I lived without hope for 19 years. To be frank it sucked. I wanted to die. I felt unloved, un-needed, unwanted, despised, hateful, vengeful, and ridiculed just to mention a few of the things I struggled with on a daily basis. All I thought about was death. I thought maybe then the pain I felt inside would stop. After all if you die you become nothing, so the things that effect you greatly here in this life can't effect you when that life is gone. I even prayed to die. Begged to die. Because I couldn't see past the hurts I carried with me every day. It was hope in something outside of myself, outside of my experiences, that gave me the courage to take the steps I needed to take to get to where I am today.

And where is it you feel that you 'are today'?
Do you not think that solving the problems that were making you depressed would not have been a more powerful option than blotting them out with spiritual narcotics?

Quote:

Dok, not trying to be negative towards you or what you believe. All I have to go on is what I've experienced personally. While I believe there is truth in this statement... I have yet to see a person claiming to be a satanist who has shown any sign of positive thinking or action in any form. If a person subscribes to a belief and says they live by it, shouldn't there be actions to follow it? Shouldn't it be evident in their life in one form or fashion?

As Satanists don't proselytize, nor do we stand out from a crowd, it's possible you know several and don't even realize it. There are MANY celebrities and economical powerhouses in the Church of Satan.
Also, don't believe everyone claiming the label fits the bill. Most are modeling themselves after the hollywood concept of satanism, which is nothing like the real deal.

So I'm curious now... who wrote the satanic bible anyway?[/quote]

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Doktor S,

Are you prepared to consider the possibility that "control" by ANY "agency", whether it be human or celestial is a limited concept ? This is the position of scientists and philosophers who have investigated the nature of "causality" and found it to be a psychological projection onto "the world".

I'm not sure what you are asking. Yes I am willing to admit no one 'agency' has complete control over everything. I am unsure what you mean about causality being a subjective perception. Are you suggesting an event without cause? If so, please share (no meanderings into theoretical quantum physics please)

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Naw, you missed the point. I am talking about those that profess religion, but never pray at all, because their 'religion' isn't a religion at all, but rather background noise that they haven't really investigated.

No I fully understood your point but it does not negate my assertion that it is very unlikely that every successful politician that prays is insincere in doing so.

Doktor S wrote:

I never argued this point to begin with. Where was it said people that pray can't be successful at anything? Do you believe all success is earned?

The point I was making was in reference to Le Vay when he says ""If we hope and pray for something to come about, we will not act in a positive way which will make it happen". You support LeVay in your opening gambit hence I quote him for our mutual edification.

How about discourse on Disney et al as you asked for evidence and I have provided such, but you have remained silent. Note "lifelong habit of prayer"

Check out Walt Disney "Thus, whatever success I have had in bringing clean, informative entertainment to people of all ages, I attribute in great part to my Congregational upbringing and my lifelong habit of prayer". http://www.disneydreamer.com/Waltfaith.htm

Check out Kellogg "The first modern and commercial cereal foods were created by the American Seventh-day Adventists. Strict vegetarian, the Adventists formed the Western Health Reform Institute in the 1860s. The Institute was later renamed the Battle Creek Sanitarium after its location in Battle Creek, Michigan. The Adventists manufactured, promoted, and sold wholesome cereals".
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcereal.htm

I'll add a few new ones for discussion sake

There are some very fine successful gospel singers that pray
http://www.island.net/~blues/gospel.htm

The growing presence of spirituality in Corporate America
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_44/b3653001.htm

0 Replies

Individual examples of people professing religion that happen to be famous/successful doesn't really evidence anything.
Again, do you believe every person of successful stature 'made it happen' for themselves? If so I find that rather naive.

And AGAIN, it's spelled LaVey, not LeVay or Le Vay

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Individual examples of people professing religion that happen to be famous/successful doesn't really evidence anything. Again, do you believe every person of successful stature 'made it happen' for themselves? If so I find that rather naive.

And AGAIN, it's spelled LaVey, not LeVay or Le Vay

Doktor S wrote:

Again, do you believe every person of successful stature 'made it happen' for themselves? If so I find that rather naive.

No I do not believe every person of successful stature made it happen for themselves, mostly one would need teamwork and apropos infrastructure at the minimum if you are referring to business, although in other areas it is possible to go solo to a greater extent.

0 Replies

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.)

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Individual examples of people professing religion that happen to be famous/successful doesn't really evidence anything.

Doktor S wrote:

Again, do you believe every person of successful stature 'made it happen' for themselves? If so I find that rather naive.

No I do not believe every person of successful stature made it happen for themselves. Mostly one would need teamwork and apropos infrastructure at the minimum if you are referring to business, although in other areas it is possible to go solo to a greater extent.

Masturbation comes to hand (pun).

0 Replies

Chumly,
I refuse to discuss the writings of Anton LaVey any further with one who is unwilling to even make the effort (despite being corrected twice) to even spell his name correctly.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Doctor S,

I was going to add as an aside that Piaget's views on early language as manipulative "word magic" are relevent to both "prayer" and "hypnosis"

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Chumly,
I refuse to discuss the writings of Anton LaVey any further with one who is unwilling to even make the effort (despite being corrected twice) to even spell his name correctly.

I am deeply saddened by your loss Smile

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Chumly,
I refuse to discuss the writings of Anton LaVey any further with one who is unwilling to even make the effort (despite being corrected twice) to even spell his name correctly.
I am deeply saddened by your loss

The fact that I pointed it out twice and your continuance to misspell it leaves me with two possible conclusions.
1: you aren't even reading my responses.
2: you are being purposely disrespectful.
Either way, I assure you I am suffering no sort of loss.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Doctor S,

I was going to add as an aside that Piaget's views on early language as manipulative "word magic" are relevent to both "prayer" and "hypnosis"

Very interesting. Do you concede that no event is without cause? (to our current knowledge)

0 Replies

Doctor S,

You miss the point ...where are the boundaries of "an event" ?

E.g. What "caused" that last sentence to be written ?

Can it be divorced from its context?/Was it a physical phenomenon?/ A mental phenomenon? / Was it "your context "? / Was it "my context" ? / Was it "my educational history" ? etc

All we can agree is that "interaction" is taking place, the course of which flows like a river around concepts of relative "fixedness"...but note that the river erodes such "fixedness" !

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
Chumly,
I refuse to discuss the writings of Anton LaVey any further with one who is unwilling to even make the effort (despite being corrected twice) to even spell his name correctly.
I am deeply saddened by your loss

The fact that I pointed it out twice and your continuance to misspell it leaves me with two possible conclusions.
1: you aren't even reading my responses.
2: you are being purposely disrespectful.
Either way, I assure you I am suffering no sort of loss.

Facts not in evidence Smile

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Doctor S,

You miss the point ...where are the boundaries of "an event" ?

E.g. What "caused" that last sentence to be written ?

Can it be divorced from its context?/Was it a physical phenomenon?/ A mental phenomenon? / Was it "your context "? / Was it "my context" ? / Was it "my educational history" ? etc

All we can agree is that "interaction" is taking place, the course of which flows like a river around concepts of relative "fixedness"...but note that the river erodes such "fixedness" !

How is any of that useful? Language can take you anywhere you want to go.
An event is a thing that happens. Things don't happen in a void, they happen because things that already happened caused them to happen.
You can debate the nature of a 'thing' and what it is to 'happen' if you like, but that doesn't really change anything. If you push over a domino, it will fall.

0 Replies

Dr S,

Your keyword in all that is "useful" not "language".

I agree that we tend to operate on a daily (non-philosophical) basis as "users" and "controllers". We all segment "events" according to our mutual concerns and purposes and we evaluate our segmentation by"successful control".

However, when we come to matters "beyond our control" we can naively designate that "control" to "a big controller" (as in prayer) or we can examine the very nature of"causality" and "the control urge" itself (as in philosophy and psychology). Wittgenstein for example did not say "that language could take us anywhere" but that "language has limits" which are defined by "common usage games". The game concerning "causality" is no longer applicable at the boundaries of "scientific knowledge" even though it has meaning in agreed closed subsystems. But notice that agreement here imples "controlled parameters" indicating eventual circularity of definition.

What I think you do (with great respect) is that you argue against the "naive view of God the controller" without investigating the notion of "control" itself. This means that your own position is dependent on the "God concept" by virtue of antithesis, in the same way that "post Freudians" could be said to owe their postions to Freud. You are playing the same "game" as theists but advocating "superior tactics".

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Dok I must commend you on this if it is really how you live your life. (no sarcasm intended) I lived a long time believing exactly this and I wasn't fairing well with it at all.

It is indeed.
Was it taking responsibility for yourself that you had a hard time with...orrr..?

Sure dok I did have a hard time taking responsibility for myself. I don't mind admitting that. I didn't know I could actually. I was a victim of my circumstances, not realizing I had other choices. Of course I hope you don't think I was implying that about you.

Quote:

Have you ever considered that power may originate within you, and not 'out there' somewhere?

Sure. We all have the power to choose. But some things in life we don't have a choice about. I'll admit some of the choices in the process I went through were grueling, but I had to make them none the less. I'm not implying here that my "creator" made all the choices for me. I am not a puppet on a string. However, it was hope in something outside of myself and outside of my circumstances that gave me the desire to change. To realize I could change. That maybe there was something better out there than what I had at the time.

Quote:

And where is it you feel that you 'are today'?
Do you not think that solving the problems that were making you depressed would not have been a more powerful option than blotting them out with spiritual narcotics?

Where am I today? I'm happy, not sad. I'm loved, not unloved, unwanted, un-needed, or despised (well by most anyway...), I don't hate anyone anymore because I don't need to. I'm not vengeful because I don't have to be. I don't hurt anymore about the things of the past. I don't carry anymore burdens. I know who I am.

Dok, answer me this:

How exactly do you solve the problem of your stepfather being the first one to rape you at the age of five?

How exactly do you solve the problem that I can't have children because of this detestible act?

How exactly do you solve the problem of your mom telling you your father never wanted you when you were nine years old?

How exactly do you solve the problem of babysitters beating you when your mom doesn't believe you?

Just to name a few of the atrocious things that happened to me.

Pretending it didn't happen doesn't work. I tried it. Blocking it out of your mind completely doesn't work either. I tried that too. I had nightmares that haunted me well into my 20's. All of those things reached me on an emotional level and effected my entire perception of myself and the world around me. So even if I could have changed the outward circumstances, which did change eventually, the inside was still effected. Those effects were evident in everything I thought, said, and did. Though no one understood why. Myself included.

My pain was way beyond being helped by even real narcotics, or alcohol. Tried that too. LOL, alcohol only brought me into an almost psycotic state of being suicidal. I laugh because of the poor people who had to tolerate me when I was like that. They didn't have a clue. I was sucked into an alcoholic lifestyle for about four years. Drinking anything to numb the pain I was feeling inside. It never worked. Only made it worse.

As far as spiritual narcotics go I don't really know what your impression of "salvation" as the christians call it is. I have heard many stories of people getting saved and seemingly living happily ever after. If you think that's what happened to me you are mistaken. That couldn't be farther from the truth. It took YEARS for a lot of changes to come about in my life. I wish I could have skipped off into the sunset with my "imaginary friend". It would have been much easier than having to re-experience the pain of all the things that had happened to me in order to let them go and get to a place of trusting people again, of believing I was loved, and so on.

0 Replies

Hephzibah,

It might amuse you to read my discussion with Doc on this thread as to LaVey's incorrect assertions about prayer. I show that prayer and success need not be mutually exclusive and that there is compelling evidence that many successful people pray.

0 Replies

Prayer=weakness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know