Prayer -- Some Philosophical Reflections
(Top Posts - Philosophy (General) - 111108)

A poster wrote, regarding the prayer of
a strong atheist:

>> Close eyes, put fingers in ears, shake head,
>> shuffle/stomp feet and chant: no, no, no, no,
>> no, no, no.....

Another poster replied:

> Not even close. The prayer goes like this
> (everybody please bow your heads)

> Oh Lord
> Ooooh, you are so big!
> So absolutely huge.
> Gosh, we're really impressed down here
> I can tell you.

> Forgive us O Lord, for this our dreadful toadying.
> And baredfaced flattery.
> But you're so strong as well.
> Just so super!

> Amen

> --
> "The word God is for me nothing more than the
> expression and product of human weaknesses,
> the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
> primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty
> childish."
>  - Albert Einstein


I replied:

Two parts of the original post in need of elaboration:

Prayer, usually defined as 1-1a) an address (as a
petition) to God or a god in word or thought,
1-2) a set order of words used in praying, 1-2b) an
earnest request or wish, 2) the act or practice of
praying to God or a god.

Strong atheist, usually defined as someone who
disbelieves in God, god, gods.

So, based on the laws of logic, prayer and strong
atheist are inconsistent terms unless one is referring
to "an earnest request or wish", in which case, so
long as the "earnest request or wish" was not made
to a deity, the original title of the article (Prayer of
a Strong Atheist) could be applied.

In that case, the "earnest request or wish" of a "strong
atheist", not made to a deity, would likely entail some
aspects of strong atheism that were likely to apply,
such as the following:

1) Opposition to brainwashing children and adults into
being afraid of a deity, and disagreement with those
who try to preach that promising immortality makes
all the religious threats OK,

2) Opposition to anti-science preached in the name of
religion

3) Support for science and expansion of human know-
ledge of the natural world so long as scientific gain is
not used in a harmful way (with, of course, the excep-
tion being when strong atheists advocate harm, noting
that in the religious realm, using science to harm others
occurred on 9-11 and so by no means is religion inno-
cent when it comes to using science to promote harm)

4) Recognition that knowing, and searching, and explor-
ing are worthwhile endeavors that, ideally, can free us
all from the natural prisons we are currently bound by
(with, of course, the exception being when strong atheists
advocate ignorance for some or many, and keep in mind,
a substantial aspect of religion is invested in fighting
against knowledge, especially true in the past, and remain-
ing as a strong risk among the most fundamental religious
followers).

5) Noting that strong atheism alone doesn't address the
milieu of choices that humans must make, and as such,
a philosophy (aka, worldview) that is much more compre-
hensive than merely rejecting religion (a critical first step
in escaping the flaws of the past and present) must be
arrived at to enhance the chances of maximizing this one
and only certain life experience -- in that regard, I submit
the following for consideration:

FREELOVER Principles
  http://prohuman.net/freelover.htm
For me, personally, disbelief in blind faith, religions, and
imaginary beings led me to ponder what, free of the burdens
of blind faith, I wanted to be about, leading me to a defini-
tion of my personal beliefs based on FREELOVER principles.

Faith in Pro-Humanism
  http://prohuman.net/prohumanism.htm
For Those Who Must Have Faith In ... something ...
For those who 'just gotta believe' in ... something/anything
that might offer a sense of wholeness and completeness ...
Wouldn't it be of inestimable value if humankind had
a choice that was of more pro-humanity, substance, verity,
logic, naturalism, and rationality than the mystical/super-
natural choices currently available?

- - -