REPuckett,
We all understand what you are saying and Void has explained it point for point exactly HOW he understands what you are saying. We just disagree with your argument. Disagreement does not equal failure to understand. Your hubris astounds me! I loathe speaking to people who attempt to counter an argument with the accusation that their point is missunderstood. You need to go one step further and explain how we are missing your point, not just restate your thesis.
Our point is that prayer is widely understood as communication with something outside the person, usually a deity.
This your argument as I see it:
1. Prayer is speaking to God
2. Gods do not exist
3. Prayer works
4. Therefore prayer describes something else and is an acceptable word to use
You would be hard pressed to support premise 2 and 3 with evidence. 2 has been widely accepted as an unprovable premise and 4 is wrong because of points that Void fleshed out nicely.
Correct me if I'm wrong and explain what I am missing.
Thank you,
Rhizo
We all understand what you are saying and Void has explained it point for point exactly HOW he understands what you are saying. We just disagree with your argument. Disagreement does not equal failure to understand. Your hubris astounds me! I loathe speaking to people who attempt to counter an argument with the accusation that their point is missunderstood. You need to go one step further and explain how we are missing your point, not just restate your thesis.
Our point is that prayer is widely understood as communication with something outside the person, usually a deity.
This your argument as I see it:
1. Prayer is speaking to God
2. Gods do not exist
3. Prayer works
4. Therefore prayer describes something else and is an acceptable word to use
You would be hard pressed to support premise 2 and 3 with evidence. 2 has been widely accepted as an unprovable premise and 4 is wrong because of points that Void fleshed out nicely.
Correct me if I'm wrong and explain what I am missing.
Thank you,
Rhizo
