Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon religion.svg

This Religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Why you can't use science[edit]

Just Because - interesting idea, but it still doesn't free you from the assertion that it "works", as "works" is an observable effect and science - whether you like it or not - tests such observable effects. It doesn't matter how you handwave the underlying mechanism, a hypothesis is still created. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 06:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BoN edit[edit]

This BoN edit made me chuckle for a minute. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

okay if I put my fun page into this article's see also?[edit]

Fun:People to pray for
Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

decided to put it in intercessory prayerCivic CatTalk to Civic Cat 00:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging stubs into this article[edit]

I suggest the following stub, semi-orphaned articles that could and should clearly be sub-sections of the main (and currently too short) Prayer article;

These should recieve their own sub-sections or be baked into the larger text, with their current articles providing redirects to the proper sections. I could undertake to start merging these into the main article in the case the idea isn't opposed but nobody volunteers to do it. Also, replies that elaborate their point past "yes" or "no" are the only useful ones, aside from the point that each article I mentioned in that list demands its own consideration. It's arguable not all but some of these should be merged into the main Prayer article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The last 4 should be merged into a section on prayer in government. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The following article should also be merged (with a redirect): Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I recant. The last 4 seem like they could remain separate. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. However, they should all link back to the prayer article in a "if you were looking for/for full article, click here" type notifications. And/or under "see also", when more appropriate. And the prayer article should certainly link out to them in the same manner on a per-article basis. — Unsigned, by: Reverend Black Percy / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 16:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


Shouldn't it be mentioned that all logical (not empirical, though) issues do not exist in polytheistic worldview? With multiple, often at odds, non omniscient, not omnipotent and not omnibenevolent it's actually alright to ask for something, and crowdsourced prayer will be "easier to hear", in a sense. Then monotheism hijacks the ritual, changing the dressing, but not the essence, and we end in what's described in the article.— Unsigned, by: / talk

"Godbotherer" section[edit]

This section provides no sources at all, and much of it comes from the unfounded assumption that God would be bothered by human prayers. YXTQWFclimbTheStairs 22:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've tried to improve it as it seemed to speak as though gods might exist. I'll give it another shot later.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
To say "Given the lack of any convincing evidence in favour of the existence of gods [...]" in a subsection of this page, especially without any citations or arguments is a huge claim. YXTQWFclimbTheStairs 02:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Read the absence of evidence article, please. --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, asking for citations for a "lack of evidence" is weird. It's like asking for "citations for no citations". In any event, if that is the point at issue - the question might be better taken up at the God page where the same point is made.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
What evidence is considered "convincing" is highly subjective, and a point like that is very difficult to disprove. This last sentence is irrelevant to the page (which only questions the evidence for prayer, not for God in general), and adds nothing to the section. YXTQWFclimbTheStairs 06:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, I would have thought that the probable non-existence of the particular supernatural being who the follower is attempting to appeal to would be kind of relevant.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Whether evidence is "convincing" is subjective; certainly someone who believes in any particular supernatural being would find some evidence for it convincing. Moreover, as neither the "lack of any convincing evidence" nor the "probable non-existence" of any particular God is not established here, I don't think such assertions belong on this page. YXTQWFclimbTheStairs 19:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)