Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiosity, can the last three ("deep", "awesome" and "1000") tell me in a straighforward way, what you think of the idea that at least part of the value of prayer is the internal focus of thought on things of importance to the supplicant?
I am "awesome" and '1000" - not a sock puppet, just a jokester.
As for prayer - if you call it meditation or self-talk, then I'm with you on it's value. It's the "supplicant" part that I don't accept. This means asking or begging someone and implies that a god is listening who may (or may not) answer the prayer. I understand that is a feature of religious prayer, but I think a person can get all the benefits of meditation without thinking of it as prayer that will be answered by a supernatural God.
Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiosity, can the last three ("deep", "awesome" and "1000") tell me in a straighforward way, what you think of the idea that at least part of the value of prayer is the internal focus of thought on things of importance to the supplicant?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The good thing is that since atheists have no soul ... Killing them is more moral than killing a chicken since they negatively impact the environment more than a chicken.
... Twisted ... Illogical .. Defense of atheist importance in an existence without God in.... 3...2...1.
Wow- we're up to chicken status now? You were so sure it was rocks just the other day. I'm so glad to see that your esteem for atheists is increasing. It's great to have a front-row seat to the opening of your fragile mind. Sniff.
Anonymous wrote:The good thing is that since atheists have no soul ... Killing them is more moral than killing a chicken since they negatively impact the environment more than a chicken.
... Twisted ... Illogical .. Defense of atheist importance in an existence without God in.... 3...2...1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiosity, can the last three ("deep", "awesome" and "1000") tell me in a straighforward way, what you think of the idea that at least part of the value of prayer is the internal focus of thought on things of importance to the supplicant?
Not any of the above. I tend to agree with you. Though I'm not sure how that necessitates a Big Guy In The Sky, though. You can meditate without any deities.
Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiosity, can the last three ("deep", "awesome" and "1000") tell me in a straighforward way, what you think of the idea that at least part of the value of prayer is the internal focus of thought on things of importance to the supplicant?
Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiosity, can the last three ("deep", "awesome" and "1000") tell me in a straighforward way, what you think of the idea that at least part of the value of prayer is the internal focus of thought on things of importance to the supplicant?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congratulations. You've just defined the process of "sock puppetting."Anonymous wrote:there seems ts a poster who makes brash statements, then responds to her/hiimself to make it appear that there is support for the initial statement.
Don'tnock sock puppetry. God is the goodness within each of us and prayer is the most exalted form of sock puppetry.
Wow - deep. Great insight, PP.
Yeah-- awesome!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congratulations. You've just defined the process of "sock puppetting."Anonymous wrote:there seems ts a poster who makes brash statements, then responds to her/hiimself to make it appear that there is support for the initial statement.
Don'tnock sock puppetry. God is the goodness within each of us and prayer is the most exalted form of sock puppetry.
Wow - deep. Great insight, PP.
Anonymous wrote:Wow - deep. Great insight, PP.Anonymous wrote:Don'tnock sock puppetry. God is the goodness within each of us and prayer is the most exalted form of sock puppetry.Anonymous wrote:Congratulations. You've just defined the process of "sock puppetting."Anonymous wrote:there seems ts a poster who makes brash statements, then responds to her/hiimself to make it appear that there is support for the initial statement.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congratulations. You've just defined the process of "sock puppetting."Anonymous wrote:there seems ts a poster who makes brash statements, then responds to her/hiimself to make it appear that there is support for the initial statement.
Don'tnock sock puppetry. God is the goodness within each of us and prayer is the most exalted form of sock puppetry.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Absolutely, agnosticism is the only defensible position. What I can't quite understand is that the "real theists" place God outside of the realm of knowing, define it as nothing more than "quintessence of being", then the second they reach that stable position, jump to, "Well, now that we've established He exists, let's talk about what His Son thinks about gay marriage."
It's ludicrous. Obviously, you get to believe anything you want. But let's leave the cheap robes of "theological scholarship" and pretensions to philosophy out of it. One of the great things about this country is that you have the fundamental right to believe whatever you like without a shred of evidence or support. Stop being so hyper-sensitive about it. And stop asking others to nod and say, "Sure that's perfectly reasonable." Just live.
Hold up a minute. Not sure it's "ludicrous " that an essence of being that needs to communicate to humans would send actual human prophets. You were thinking God should communicate with thunderbolts in Morse code, or messages in rainbows, or something?
Anyway, using "contemptuous" terms like "ludicrous" totally undermine you as you lecture us to "just live." And it's pretty clear that the angry atheists are hypersensitive too-anger is a heated emotion, right?
Actually I'm not angry at all. I find the ludicrous logical contortions to be fascinating.