Why do people pray for someone?

Interesting, though perhaps offensive, take from One Furious Llama:

I wasn’t going to write about this again. Not this soon anyway but somebody reminded me of the dumb ****ery that is currently trending on Twitter. Even though this latest bout of idiocy is inspired by the happenings in London (#prayforlondon), please feel free to apply this to any situation what so ever that the religionuts feel should be prayed over.

Right, so, “pray for <insert some disaster area here>”. Examples: pray for London, pray for Christchurch, pray for Japan, pray for Haiti.

Why should one pray, after the fact, for the victims of a disaster? Do you expect the God you pray to is going to magically fix things, after the fact? Why is this God going to do this? To demonstrate his awesome? To demonstrate how kind and good he is? Will this time be different?

No you ****ing idiot. He isn’t going to do a ******* thing. Just like he didn’t do a ******* thing any other times he was prayed to by you pious morons. Do you know why? Because he doesn’t exist. You are talking to yourself. There, is, no, god. Not yours, not the ancient Greek’s, the Romans’, the Norse, the Africans, no gods at all, anywhere, ever.

However, if, hypothetically, there was a god, the Christian one for example (but feel free to replace ‘Jesus’ with whichever figment of your imagination you prefer): if Jesus needs to be told about whichever tragedy just happened, he isn’t omniscient and therefore is not a god. If he knew about it and caused it, Jesus is an evil mass murdering b*stard. If he knew about it and he was able to stop it but didn’t, he’s criminally negligent. If he wasn’t able to stop it, he’s not a god. Why, exactly, are you praying? What are you asking for? What is wrong in your head?

Let me tell you what praying is really all about (to borrow from one of my earlier posts). Praying is something you do so that you can feel and look like you’ve done something without actually having to do anything. Telling people to pray for whatever tragedy is primarily to flaunt your precious pious disposition, to impress others with how freaking much you believe in your deity and how little your brain actually functions.

Praying is exactly like wanking. When you get right down to it, wanking is only good for the person stroking his dick. Some people get off on seeing somebody wank in public and other people get off by wanking in little groups or large groups but fundamentally, only the wanker really benefits.
Again, this is why I am irritated. Watching people tell other people to ‘pray for whatever’ is like watching one wanker, furiously whacking away, telling a bunch of other wankers to join him.

Praying is exactly like that. Only the idiot mumbling to himself benefits while the victims of the tragedy benefit nothing what so ever. The only one better off after a good ‘ol prayer is the idiot who did the praying. In fact, wanking would probably be more productive than praying.

So instead of mumbling some inane bull**** to a non-existent figment of your imagination, give some money to the Red Cross here: http://www.redcross.org.nz/donations or give some money to Oxfam here: http://www.oxfam.org.nz/donate-online or to Amnesty international here: http://www.amnesty.org/en/donate
Then go tell a real person you love them, stop being a pious dick and learn some science. THAT makes the world better.

 

This appears to be a piece of writing in which the person understands less than an average 5 year old.

People don't pray for the victims thinking it will fix everything. People pray for the victims being able to deal with the pain of loss and suffering in the best way possible.

Also people praying doesn't preclude them from also giving to Red Cross. It wasn't that this article was offensive, just incredibly ill informed and quiet frankly... stupid.

 

If prayer isn't intended to fix things, it sounds more like a pointless ritual than something that offers any tangible benefits. I'm sorry, but I don't think praying actually helps people cope with feelings and you can't demonstrate that either. People will need to cope with tragedies anyways. Hopefully they manage to find happiness again, but prayer isn't going to be a factor. Community support might be a factor, but that would happen without prayer. Instead of saying "I'll pray for you" we might as well just say "**** that sucks"...

 

then don't do it. if you think it's pointless and ritualistic and in no way helpful then don't do it. i usually avoid things i find to be pointless, ritualistic and in no way helpful, as well.

 

Okay. But if you choose to do it, it would seem that you believe there's something to it. So is the power of prayer demonstratable in any way? Because I don't want to miss out on some supernatural powers if I can have them...

 

"People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. I'm sure the people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. Could be bad, could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own. And that fills them with fear. Yeah, there are those people. But there's a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they're looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences" - Graham Hess in "Signs"

The tone of this thread has turned from inquiry to sarcastic jackassery. And yeah that's a word, 'cause I just said it. If you believe there's nothing to it, awesome! Great! No problem! If I believe there's something to it, I'll hope you'll afford me the same level of respect. This isn't a policy question to be debated....it's a question of belief and preference, ultimately.

 

You're still missing the point. I posted this at the beginning of the thread:
[rquoter]Whether it actually works or not is less the point as it is providing a symbolic and psychological gesture of support and sympathy for someone.[/rquoter]
You as a non-believer might not expect anything good to happen from praying for someone but if you are doing so for someone who is a believer that is understood as providing comfort and support rooted in their religious / cultural background.

Too much is being made of whether prayers are actually answered by some higher being when the focus should be on whether prayer provides some spiritual or psychological good for the individual(s) it is directed for and for the people doing so.

 

3814... to put it more bluntly then MadMax... the power of prayer may have some kind of positive psychological effect for some, but on the whole, you know very well that there is no demonstrable evidence that prayer "works". This is 2011, not 211... we're kind of past the point of actually wondering whether or not there is legitimate proof that religious-associated beliefs are factual.

It all comes down to personal belief... and I'm pretty sure you know that... and I'm pretty sure that any intelligent adult knows that. "God" isn't walking through that door (in the sky?) tomorrow to say, "see... I do exist"... you either have to believe he/she/they/it does exist... or don't. Same with prayer.

Choose for yourself. I don't think it matters, ultimately, what choice you make, so don't get too worked up over the other parties view, either.

 

That's a hell of an assumption to make.

(Yes, I know it's a movie quote)

 

Does it fill you with hope when you see children born with internal organs outside their bodies?

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oEl9kVl6KPc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

It depends on what you believe about the story of the flood. If you believe the message and point of the story along with the rest of the bible, then you absolutely don't believe that God meant to kill every child on earth.

If you believe it as literal you might. I really don't know. I haven't seen anyone here say they believe it as literal.

 

So what. As others have said, if you don't like it then don't do it. If others like it let them do it. Why are you going out of your way to try make it seem bad if people do something like pray.

No matter what effect prayer has it's a way of sympathizing with someones situation and wishing them well. If that's a problem for you, then don't wish someone well. Wishing someone well doesn't make their problems go away, but people of all religions and no religion wish people well. Some do it with prayer.

Your posts make it seem like you're trying to tell other what to do.

 

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7xNSgBkum7o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I just want to say that the crap with everyone ****ing with people who said they will pray for LL in the death thread were tards.

 

But see, this is where I find the disconnect: how do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible (or Christian dogma in general) are real and which are metaphorical/allegorical? Is it just a gut feeling? Intuition?

It just always seems to be that folks who interpret the teachings of the Bible tend to think of the parts they have a problem with (killing millions of innocent children in a flood, killing millions of innocent first-born Egyptians, having to marry your brother's widow if they didn't have kids, owning slaves, etc.) as not-literal, and the parts they like (turning water into wine, calming the seas, walking on water, raising the dead, etc.) as literal. Doesn't that seem a little too convenient?

Which always leads me to the next question: how does one call themselves Christian when they reject large portions of the book that purports to tell the story of Christ? If you question part of it, don't you have to question ALL of it?

 

Again it seems like you and fundamentalists look at the bible the same way. Other Christians don't look at it and interpret it in that way fundamentalists.

There are tons of different ways to tell which parts are literal and which parts aren't. One way is reading and studying literature you learn that not all writing is literal. That's true in books that any person would buy in a bookstore or online. Another way is bible study. Study the culture, times, and other writings of what's happening in the bible. There were plenty of other religions at the time with a flood story, so it makes sense that it isn't literal. As far as the miracles go, other writings at the time that weren't even about 100% religious figures have miracles. Every single Roman emperor performed at least one miracle, and it was written about. That was actually part of what people had to do to be considered a legitimate Roman Emperor. So it makes sense that people at the time wrote about miracles for all sorts of people. It just takes study and context. The more I learn about the context of who wrote the bible, who it was written for, and who would be reading it at the time it helps my understanding of the stories, letters and writing in the books. But even all of this is only part of it. There is more.

Like I said before, I base it on all the other parts of the bible. I look at it through the actions and teachings of Jesus. What did Jesus do, how many times did Jesus correct people's misinterpretations of events from the old testament to a more loving way?

Finally I don't know all the answers. But I am able to read and see what the overall message is. Like I said before with the story of Robin Hood... The message is to stand up against tyranny. Look out for the little guy. It isn't really that armed robbery is a good thing.

I think one of the greatest parables in the bible is the story of the prodigal son. The one son asks for his inheritance early, leaves, and wastes it all. He finally decides that he's going to come back and ask to be a worker on his father's lands. He's decided he isn't worthy to be a son anymore, and knows he's done something wrong. But he needs help and still goes to the father.

When he goes back, the father has a fatted calf prepared, gives him all of these gifts, and throws a party in his honor. It's a big deal. The younger son is no doubt surprised. All he's done is forgiven and he isn't even asked to pay it back.

The older son is mad. He's been working all the time for his dad, and didn't waste his part of the inheritance. Yet his dad never gave him a calf or a goat or any of that. So he complains to the father.

The father says this son has returned to me so we should be happy and celebrate. But you've been with me every day. You could have had any of the fatted calf, parties, robes, rings, etc. every day.

See the lesson is that it was always there. Always. It just was.

So looking back at any story, it's important to remember that that kind of love was always there. And a story about God wiping out millions of innocent babies doesn't really illustrate that.

But even above all of that, is the idea that the message of all the stories is more important than the details. So wasting time arguing about whether Jesus provided some wine at a wedding, or if Noah built an ark that held 2 of every single animal is missing the point. Discussion should be more about the point of the stories, rather than the details.

 

First off - I do believe in coincidences and I do believe in amazing things. But believing in miracles is not a rational belief.

If a tornado splits and goes around your village after you prayed, I'm happy for you. But you can't call it an answer to prayer when another 100 tornadoes hit praying-people head on. When you survive a car accident, I'm happy for you. But you can't call it a miracle when other people are dying in them. Or you can... but you'd be arrogantly proclaiming that the almighty creator of the universe decides once in a while (but not all the time due to sin and freedom of choice) to jump in and intervene to save a few good folk - but completely ignores many others in far more drastic situations. That, right there, is religious beliefs in miracles in a nutshell. "I had something amazing happen to me" turns into "It can't be a coincidence - God saved my life while ignoring others in more drastic situations."

I will respect your right to choose what you want, but I can't pretend that it's "great! no problem!". Irrational belief is a problem. If you say "my friend jumped off a cliff and flew across the river to another mountain" I won't believe you unless it passes the test of observation + testing. I will roll my eyes if you believe such a story without seeing it for yourself and checking for any illusions. I might even confront you on it. And sure, you can believe it if you want. But I don't need to sit back and say "oh, that's great that you believe that". I think you're a fantastic person, Max. And I can be a jackass at times, so I'm sorry about that. But if we, as humans, are willing to call each other out on everything else under the sun - I don't see why religion should be off limits.

 

It's a joke to me that the only solid reason for prayer is the psychological benefit. So it's basically cool to make up anything for the psychological rewards? "Don't worry mate, I just spoke to the almighty creator of the universe and he told me that he's going to hold your hand through this one!"

There's a parallel to a story my co-worker shared yesterday:

She was taking her daughter to an Avril Lavigne concert and they showed up early. When they were walking around outside the stadium, an 8 year old girl shouted "look mom, that's Avril Lavigne" while pointing at her daughter. Everybody involved - my co-worker, the daughter, and the little girl's mother - pretended that yes, she was Avril Lavigne so that the little girl would have a cool story to tell. They shook hands, signed an autograph, and everything. The little girl was so giddy.

Most people go, "ooooh, what a cute story! that girl must have been so excited". And it's true, she was. So I suppose there's a psychological benefit there. But I think, "WTF - you all lied to the little girl?!" Seriously, in your own life do you want everybody creating fake moments for your psychological benefits or do you want to deal in realities? I'd rather deal in realities.

The only reason religion offers psychological benefits is because people irrationally believe in religion just like that little girl irrationally believed she met Avril Lavigne outside. But we're not little kids anymore. We're big boys and girls. We should be able to handle the truth. There aren't any rational reasons to believe the claims of religion. None of it has passed the tests of the scientific method - observation + experimentation. Instead, people believe because they believe. Nobody has objective evidence that makes their religion more true than another religion. You picked one (most likely based on your upbrining), you believe the stories (without evidence), and you continue the cycle of teaching them to your kids.

Yes, there are mysteries out there. But I don't see why we need to fill the gaps with 'certain' answers. But I will tolerate religious beliefs - I just won't act like religion offers psychological benefits. Religion deals in creating fairy tales rather than dealing in reality, and to me that is not a psychological benefit.