How does prayer really help Oklahoma tornado victims?

[Humanista]

[font=Georgia][/font]
I live in Oklahoma. The recent tornado devastation is of course very distressing to me. I can't help but notice all the clamor for prayer. Our governor, Mary Fallin, went on national television and said ""we need prayers!" Twitter is covered with #pray for Oklahoma. Every single celebrity, politician, and everyone on Facebook parrots the same thing: Oklahoma is in our thoughts and prayers. I know people want to say something and do something and show they care. But is anyone really thinking this through? What are you praying for? Even if you take the position that God didn't send the tornado, He is surely aware of it and has already decided how He will respond. Just like all the survivors who declared that God saved them,what about God's apparently Mysterious Reasons for allowing 7 third graders to drown while buried under rubble?
So what happens if everyone doesn't pray? Will God withhold whatever it is everyone is praying FOR if the number of prayers fails to reach a certain level? Is there a correlation between how many people pray and a good outcome for tornado survivors?

It would seem that all the people praying think God needs to be persuaded to help them.

Or that God is so egotistical He needs to be praised and flattered and begged to do what ordinary humans do out of love: help people.

I think all this praying is just a way for people to feel good about doing something when all they've done is think their thoughts.

D you think your petitions to the Almighy influences how much help the survivors get?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by Humanista]

I don't think you need prayers. I think you need disaster relief, and I think you needed better public storm shelters to begin with, which means PLANNING ahead of time for disaster.

Prayers in and of themselves do nothing... not unless it accompanies proper action.

[Humanista]

[Replying to post 2 by Goat]

Well in a perfect world there would be a storm shelter within 1O minutes walking distance of every person in Oklahoma. But it's a poor state. One in 4 children have inadequate food. Child abuse and drug abuse are high. Teachers are among the lowest paid in the country. Hundreds of bridges are unsafe. Jails and prisons are overcrowded. Oklahomans are among the most obese, diabetic and heavy smokers. It's a mostly rural state where very few go to college. Faced with all these challenges, spending millions on storm shelters isn't really an option unless it is financed privately or by donations.
I have lived in Okla since I was 4 and I'm now 62. I've never seen or heard a tornado and neither have most of the people I know. When they hit, yes it's terrible, but the odds are still pretty good for most Oklahomans that a tornado won't affect you. It's an acceptable risk. Hurricanes and earthquakes affect a much larger area.
As for public shelters, consider how many must be built for a population the size of Oklahoma City or Tulsa.
I'm pretty sure the Moore tornado was the first time anyone died in a school. Again, risk versus cost doesn't add up.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1 by Humanista]

Since more than likely your OP is about Christians versus the godless, it's a case of materialism (godless humanism) versus those that think they will exist aware (and not unaware and just dead) in eternity based on an eternal and caring Creator.

Now there is no reason why a godless person would care about the hurt, sick and needy. It's just not logicalical. Ther is no reason for compassion. Nothing is better for nature than to exterminate the the sick, the poor, the mentally and physically sick and the stupid among the human species.

Now, for those that feel appreciative to the Creator for life, they would by that nature, want to help their less fortunate fellow man, because basicaly we are all family.

So prayer, is not a wasted act on an impossible mission, but rather a behavior hard-wired into our DNA. We are simply responding, not like we would if we were just an animal with an alleged sharper intellect, but rather like a child knowing that we are in physical and mental pain when things hurt us and kill our fellow man and more importantly, our offspring, instinctively, we seek relief by reaching out to a "person" that can comfort us.

A true materialist ( a godless atheist) should by their declared nature, not give a moments notice to comforting the sick, dying or stupid among the populace.

Logically, in a materialist (atheistic) worldview, mankind is nothing more than another mammal seeking shelter and food with no inherent worth in those that get injured and killed choosing to live where a bad choice in choosing where to live can get them killed more often than living elswhere.

How does prayer really help Oklahoma tornado victims?

Prayer keeps us realizing that we are more than that.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 2 by Goat]

Hey Goat,

This Christian has you beat by 2000-years.

Faith Without Works Is Dead

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,� but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.� Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

- The book of James (New Testament)

[Humanista]

Now there is no reason why a godless person would care about the hurt, sick and needy. It's just not logicalical. There is no reason for compassion. Nothing is better for nature than to exterminate the the sick, the poor, the mentally and physically sick and the stupid among the human species.

I must disagree with your assumptions. You seem to think that because "nature" seeks to "exterminate" the sick, etc that people who don't believe in a god are likewise completely devoid of compassion. This is quite a leap. You are equating a theory known as survival of the fittest to human beings and their innate desire to bond/love each other. It is you who is playing fast and loose with logic.

Yes "nature" is a force without feeling, like gravity. But individual human beings are not " nature". People, including me, care about others and have compassion. We don't need a god to give us a reason. In fact! I think it is more admirable to care about your fellow man out of love (with no reward dangling as a carrot) than to care because you know you have to in order to please your god and get into heaven.

Now, for those that feel appreciative to the Creator for life, they would by that nature, want to help their less fortunate fellow man, because basicaly we are all family.

You assume that ONLY those who believe in a creator can POSSIBLY feel this way and you are simply wrong. I feel a kinship to all humanity, without a creator.

So prayer, is not a wasted act on an impossible mission, but rather a behavior hard-wired into our DNA. We are simply responding, not like we would if we were just an animal with an alleged sharper intellect, but rather like a child knowing that we are in physical and mental pain when things hurt us and kill our fellow man and more importantly, our offspring, instinctively, we seek relief by reaching out to a "person" that can comfort us.

How do you know it's hard wired unto DNA? Did you just make that up because it sounds good? Sorry, it's not an effective argument without something to back it up beyond your opinion. Yes, I agree theists are like children who need a Daddy to comfort them.

A true materialist ( a godless atheist) should by their declared nature, not give a moments notice to comforting the sick, dying or stupid among the populace.

Logically, in a materialist (atheistic) worldview, mankind is nothing more than another mammal seeking shelter and food with no inherent worth in those that get injured and killed choosing to live where a bad choice in choosing where to live can get them killed more often than living elswhere.

What is this "declared nature" ? An atheist simply doesn't believe in any gods. Nothing beyond that is "declared". There is nothing in a lack of god-belief that prevents a person from having compassion. A materialistic worldview does NOT mean a person views himself as "a mammal seeking food and shelter" with no regard for others. Why do you assume god belief is a requirement for people to be kind or loving? Is it because you have to be promised a heavenly reward to motivate you?

How does prayer really help Oklahoma tornado victims?

Prayer keeps us realizing that we are more than that.[/quote]

[99percentatheism]

99:
Now there is no reason why a godless person would care about the hurt, sick and needy. It's just not logicalical. There is no reason for compassion. Nothing is better for nature than to exterminate the the sick, the poor, the mentally and physically sick and the stupid among the human species.

I must disagree with your assumptions. You seem to think that because "nature" seeks to "exterminate" the sick, etc that people who don't believe in a god are likewise completely devoid of compassion. This is quite a leap. You are equating a theory known as survival of the fittest to human beings and their innate desire to bond/love each other. It is you who is playing fast and loose with logic.

I have never met an atheist that doesn't bring up evolution as a path for their atheism. So, I am not assuming anything. materialism is based squarely on natural causes. Death is nothing to evoke compassion and caring if it is just a natural process. It is not me that is playing fats and loose with reality, it is the materialist that starts looking silly when they spout off about compassion for the sick and needy.

Yes "nature" is a force without feeling, like gravity. But individual human beings are not " nature".

Reread what you wrote. I'll give you a chance to edit your sentence.

People, including me, care about others and have compassion.

It is counter productive to a natural world.

We don't need a god to give us a reason.

Evolution and materialism cannot supply the answer for why humans would care about the sick and dying. They just get what nature gives them Let's move on to more fortunate individuals. THAT is 100% nature.

In fact! I think it is more admirable to care about your fellow man out of love (with no reward dangling as a carrot) than to care because you know you have to in order to please your god and get into heaven.

Prove love.

99:
Now, for those that feel appreciative to the Creator for life, they would by that nature, want to help their less fortunate fellow man, because basicaly we are all family.

You assume that ONLY those who believe in a creator can POSSIBLY feel this way and you are simply wrong. I feel a kinship to all humanity, without a creator.

How? Compassion for the sick and dying makes no natural sense at all.

Lions and Parrots do not have compassion for the hurt, sick and dying.

99:
So prayer, is not a wasted act on an impossible mission, but rather a behavior hard-wired into our DNA. We are simply responding, not like we would if we were just an animal with an alleged sharper intellect, but rather like a child knowing that we are in physical and mental pain when things hurt us and kill our fellow man and more importantly, our offspring, instinctively, we seek relief by reaching out to a "person" that can comfort us.

How do you know it's hard wired unto DNA?

History.

Did you just make that up because it sounds good?

No. I believe that some history books are not written by liars.

Sorry, it's not an effective argument without something to back it up beyond your opinion.

That people pray is not my opinion. It is observation of historical facts.

Yes, I agree theists are like children who need a Daddy to comfort them.

Hard wired into our DNA. Even a common staunch atheist feels bad when they have a ill child. Not a one of them do what rats do to their young. Most even cry when their sick offspring die. What a waste of bodily fluids that could be used for better purposes. If the sick and unhealthy die, that os good for the species.

THAT is materialism whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not.

99:
A true materialist ( a godless atheist) should by their declared nature, not give a moments notice to comforting the sick, dying or stupid among the populace.

Logically, in a materialist (atheistic) worldview, mankind is nothing more than another mammal seeking shelter and food with no inherent worth in those that get injured and killed choosing to live where a bad choice in choosing where to live can get them killed more often than living elswhere.

What is this "declared nature" ?

You don't believe in evolution?

An atheist simply doesn't believe in any gods. Nothing beyond that is "declared".

Show me one that doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution to support their atheism?

There is nothing in a lack of god-belief that prevents a person from having compassion.

Compassion for the sick and dying serves no materialistic purpose at all. In fact, it is a waste of natural resources. nature only cares about the well and strong.

A materialistic worldview does NOT mean a person views himself as "a mammal seeking food and shelter" with no regard for others.

Then it's hypocrisy they do. Compassion has no natural purpose. In fact, quite the opposite. You have seen all the plastic in our oceans right?

Why do you assume god belief is a requirement for people to be kind or loving?

Logic.

Is it because you have to be promised a heavenly reward to motivate you?

Love for God motivates me to care about my fellow human beings. materialism would obviously cause me the opposite.

Do you actually care because you think it mandates others to care for you when you are sick or weak? So, selfishness drives the atheist's compassion? Now that makes sense in a materialst worldview. You're hoping you are investing in your own well being.

I get it now.

Effective survival tactic. Like the weaker wolves serving the Alpha male and Alpha female. Of course stealing and pillaging and murdering during most catastrophe's kind of throw a wrench into the materialist moral pontificating. Actually, the raping and pillaging is nothing wrong at all in nature.

So then, the materialst (atheist, humanist) that acts compassionatley towards those in need, is, actually, through supernatural actions really proving that God does exist.

[Humanista]

I have never met an atheist that doesn't bring up evolution as a path for their atheism.

Well you have now. I accepted evolution when I was a Christian and my atheism has no "path". Evolution has nothing to do with my atheism.

Death is nothing to evoke compassion and caring if it is just a natural process. It is not me that is playing fats and loose with reality, it is the materialist that starts looking silly when they spout off about compassion for the sick and needy.

Your error is in believing that people who don't believe in gods have no feelings. There is NO logic in saying that a person is incapable of compassion or love or kindness or any other positive unselfish emotion without a belief in a god. Children learn to love and care for others by example, and it is also innate in humans because it is useful to survival to form bonds. Bonding occurs on other animals too: elephants mourn the death of other elephants, birds mate for life, even your pet dog feels something for you doesn't he?

Yes "nature" is a force without feeling, like gravity. But individual human beings are not " nature".

Reread what you wrote. I'll give you a chance to edit your sentence.

Perhaps you simply didn't understand my meaning. I will clarify. Nature does not have feelings because the term "nature" refers to the concept of the natural world and its processes. Feelings are something that humans and some animals have because they have a brain. Feelings are an aspect of the natural world in the same sense that some living things can smell or see and yet this thing you are calling nature does not see or smell because it's not an animal, it's all of nature. You are assigning an individual trait--or lack of it--to nature as a whole, which is not logical.

People, including me, care about others and have compassion.

It is counter productive to a natural world.

How so? Taking care of others and being unselfish is the way humans have survived as a group. Other species do too. I find it very curious that you are so obstinately insisting that a lack of belief in gods changes a person into some kind of odd fundamentalist about what is or isn't "natural"--according to YOUR definition of it.

We don't need a god to give us a reason.

Prove love.

Well that's a non-sequitor. What does proving love have to do with anything?

How? Compassion for the sick and dying makes no natural sense at all.

Lions and Parrots do not have compassion for the hurt, sick and dying.

Oh I see. If lions and parrots don't have human feelings, and I believe I am an animal, then I can't have feelings either? Ha! Ha! Your reasoning is so simplistic it's amusing!

How do you know it's hard wired unto DNA?

History.

No. I believe that some history books are not written by liars.

History doesn't have much to say about DNA, especially since it was unknown 100 years ago. I think you are saying that since people have always prayed throughout history, it must be a genetic trait. But until a gene for prayer is discovered, you're just speculating.
I agree that humans have a drive for religion, a need to explain things, a hope for immortality, justice for evil doers, rewards for the good, etc.

And apparently you think some history books are written by liars and some aren't. Might you be a holocaust denier?

Hard wired into our DNA. Even a common staunch atheist feels bad when they have a ill child. Not a one of them do what rats do to their young. Most even cry when their sick offspring die. What a waste of bodily fluids that could be used for better purposes. If the sick and unhealthy die, that os good for the species.

THAT is materialism whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not.

Well that is your definition of materialism, but not mine. A dog will grieve when its owner dies. Why should they care since they are a part of nature? Its almost comical the way you make a caricature of survival of the fittest, as if losing belief in gods forces one to become this silly "what is best for my species!!!" idiot.
Come on, surely you can do better than that.

Do you actually care because you think it mandates others to care for you when you are sick or weak? So, selfishness drives the atheist's compassion? Now that makes sense in a materialst worldview. You're hoping you are investing in your own well being.

I get it now.

Actually, you don't. I don't care for others in order to insure they care for me. I volunteer at the local food bank because I want to help those less fortunate. The people I help don't even know me, and I don't expect them to give back to me. I sent money to help the tornado victims. It does not benefit me to do so, now or in the future. Those people don't know me either. In fact, I am losing time and money doing those things. But you can't explain why I do it, can you? You insist I MUST be selfish and heartless, yet I am not. How DO you explain me? I myself and the thousands of other kind compassionate loving caring people who don't believe in gods are the perfect example of why your theory is so flawed. If it were true, we wouldn't exist.

Effective survival tactic. Like the weaker wolves serving the Alpha male and Alpha female.

How do weak wolves "serve" stronger ones? How does this help them survive? Shouldn't the Alpha wolf just kill the weaker ones? Hmmm....even wolves see the benefit of cooperation and living in a pack! And by the way, "survival of the fittest" has NOTHING to do with the weak wolf "serving" the strong wolf.

Of course stealing and pillaging and murdering during most catastrophe's kind of throw a wrench into the materialist moral pontificating. Actually, the raping and pillaging is nothing wrong at all in nature.

Funny that all those things are historically done by those who embrace god-belief. God even endorses it in the Bible!

So then, the materialst (atheist, humanist) that acts compassionatley towards those in need, is, actually, through supernatural actions really proving that God does exist.

Wow what are my supernatural actions?

[Overcomer]

I guess the question is, how would you even know what "good" is apart from God? After all, if we are all just accidents of nature, arrived at by chance, what would make one accident of nature's idea about good and evil more correct than another's? If there are no objective universal laws by an objective universal lawgiver, then we are left with relativism and each individual choosing what is right and what is wrong and acting accordingly.

As atheist Jean-Paul Sartre put it, whether a person chooses to hit the little old lady crossing the street with his car or avoid her and let her get to the other side unharmed really doesn't matter because either choice could be right or wrong to somebody and who is to say which is best? Maybe the little old lady would be better off dead.

I am not making light of the carnage done by the tornados, but am merely trying to point out that the atheist has a real problem when it comes to grounding right and wrong in anything outside of himself. In fact, I submit that atheists borrow from Christianity to get a set of ethics by which to live because, without them, life would be total chaos and plenty ugly!

As for prayer, the purpose of it is to connect with God and commune with him, sharing what is going on in our lives and asking for his help and guidance. Would he give it without praying? Sure! But he gives us the privilege of interacting with him, one that I really appreciate and enjoy!

[Bust Nak]

I have never met an atheist that doesn't bring up evolution as a path for their atheism.

Hello. 99percentatheism, we've met before. I was an atheist long before I heard the scientific theory of evolution.

It is counter productive to a natural world.

The nature world has no goal, therefore nothing can be counter productive to it.

Evolution and materialism cannot supply the answer for why humans would care about the sick and dying.

Sure it can. We've given you the answer many a times on these forums.

They just get what nature gives them Let's move on to more fortunate individuals. THAT is 100% nature.

Yeah, and us fortunate individual got given empathy and compassion, it's 100% nature.

Prove love.

Easy enough. Are you willing to send us a blood sample and cover the cost of a test?

How? Compassion for the sick and dying makes no natural sense at all.

We've told you, I've personally told you: It's gave us an evolutionary advantage so it stuck.

Lions and Parrots do not have compassion for the hurt, sick and dying.

Lions and parrots do have compassion for the sick and dying of their social group.

That people pray is not my opinion. It is observation of historical facts.

You were asked about being wired into our DNA, not just the fact that people pray. It may well be true for many people. It's not wired into my DNA.

Hard wired into our DNA. Even a common staunch atheist feels bad when they have a ill child. Not a one of them do what rats do to their young. Most even cry when their sick offspring die. What a waste of bodily fluids that could be used for better purposes. If the sick and unhealthy die, that os good for the species.

THAT is materialism whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not.

If the sick and unhealthy die, that is not necessarily good for the species. It depends on which many factors.

Show me one that doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution to support their atheism?

That's me! The only support I need for my atheism is the continual failure of theists to demostrate their claims.

Compassion for the sick and dying serves no materialistic purpose at all. In fact, it is a waste of natural resources. nature only cares about the well and strong.

Incorrect. It gave us an advantage as a social species.

Then it's hypocrisy they do. Compassion has no natural purpose. In fact, quite the opposite. You have seen all the plastic in our oceans right?

Don't know what point you are trying to rase, what does plastic have to do with compassion?

Do you actually care because you think it mandates others to care for you when you are sick or weak? So, selfishness drives the atheist's compassion?

Selfishness drives evolution, we are all product of evolution.

Now that makes sense in a materialst worldview. You're hoping you are investing in your own well being.

I get it now.

Effective survival tactic. Like the weaker wolves serving the Alpha male and Alpha female. Of course stealing and pillaging and murdering during most catastrophe's kind of throw a wrench into the materialist moral pontificating. Actually, the raping and pillaging is nothing wrong at all in nature.

And this is exactly what we see in human society. A mixture of good behavior and bad behavior, as would be expected had we been product of evolution.

So then, the materialst (atheist, humanist) that acts compassionatley towards those in need, is, actually, through supernatural actions really proving that God does exist.

Incorrect conclusion from false premises.