is that not 2 questions? 1.was is right to promise? yes--and 2.was it right to not pray? yes--3. was it right to promise, knowing i wouldn't keep the promise? i'd say yes because you were trying to bring comfort to one suffering, i m op
i say it's 2 questions, since there were 2 decisions made at 2 different times.

I second (or third or whatever by now) this emotion.

The way you described the situation makes you sound hypocritical. If, as someone suggested, you really intended it to be a joke in the first place, that didn't come across to me. But in that case, to me a joke in that situation would be in very poor taste.

If you intended to make the prayer but backed out because you later decided it would be hypocritical of you, I can support that. But that's not the way I read your post.

wux,

You gave your word. There is no better reason to keep it. The moral concern has nothing to do with religion and/or atheism, nor of the health of the sick person. Rather, it has everything to do with voluntarily entering into an obligation, and then not meeting that obligation when you could have.

I see that others have picked up on this as well.

My goodness gracious.

You folks really helped. Really, but really valuable thoughts there.

I am very glad I came back to this thread and read the answers.

I think I have to agree with those of you, who said my ambivalence of guilt comes from not keeping my word when I had given it.

Then there is the thought that whether I kept my word or not, I did good, by comforting the sufferer.

Then there are those who saw why I changed my mind: I changed my mind because to me it was really absolutely useless to pray, and it was illogical to do so, a total waste of time; and it would have also been a guilt-producing action, inasmuch as I would have commited an act directly contravening my credo.

==========

I figured that going back on a promise is a cultural guilt, in my old country this was a big deal. You gave your word in that country, and you went to hell if you did not keep it. The same conundrum would emerge, how can I go to hell if there is no hell? But the thinking never progressed to that point, since everybody always kept their words. Cultural norm can be so much oppressive and commanding.

==========

Three or more people saw this very clearly, and Creativesoul put the final nail in the coffin of my guilt: I went back on my word.

----------

Now I see that this is a doomed if you do, doomed if you don't situation. I strive to be honest. I can't pray to a god, and if I did, I would feel stupid, moreover, unethical to my credo. If I did not pray, I would feel guilty for going back on my word. Liek creativesoul said, it had nothing to do how it woul dreflect on the person's end to whom I promised to pray.

So seeing that both praying and not praying are bad, equally and with the same effect, I decided to keep to the status quo and not pray. I decided I can't win in this, I shall forever feel odd about this.

(To whover said, "honey does my rear look big in this?" I would say yes if it did. Because even if she kills me for this, saying "no, it does not" while it does, also would kill me. Plus I can't say a lie convincingly. Sometimes I can't say the truth convincingly. I am a poker-face and a wobbly-voice. If I ever took a lying test, or whatever it is called that the police use, then all my statements would come out as lies. I don't perform well under pressure, and the mere thought that others won't believe me, will put me in such a stressed state that truths will come out sounding as lies.)

I liked the best, despite all of you gave very real and very valuable points, logically all sound and well-thought out, the answer by teadipper. She said "it's not harmful, so you can't lose by saying the prayer" was invalid, as I can lose face in front of myself for saying the prayer. But the great part of her statement was coming after that, "you put out ions of positive resonations if you say the prayer". Well, yes, if it also did not kill me, but that's beside the point.

Her rightness of her suggestion, to me, lay in understanding that 'good' and 'bad' deeds and wishes are not ephemeral. They may be, but they have an effect more than on the subjective psyche of the individual who generates the thought or prayer or good feelings for himself in his own brain. I do believe, much like teadipper, that good, happy, joyful events bear a little bit of an angel-soul, or angel-kiss. Yes, I do believe these exist, and get born from non-matter but still real material, whereby this material gets torn out of the huge reserve of this material, which is neutral, and it gets soaked with joyful happy feeling when an "angel-kiss" impregnates this material, and then, not as matter, but still as a real and existing entity, it floats away and bumps into things like the walls, the ceiling, trees, flying birdshit, etc., until in its random path it bumps into a kiss, for instance, a first kiss between two lovers and then it helps their kiss create more of this matterless real existence impregnate more matterless material to create more happy blissful little angel-kisses.

This is occult, and has no empirical evidence, but I am trying to find some. Call me crazy, and I won't fight, I accept this is crazy form a materialistic point of view. But I am not necessarily a materialist; I am a logicist, and I feel comfortable with whatever logic allows or rather, with whatever that logic does not outright reject as impossible. So I am an atheist, coz gods are impossible, as much as they are described to be by their respective religions. Angel-kisses, as defined above, are not impossible. Gods are not impossible, they are only impossible if you want to apply a religion's description to one. But it's also an individual's choice whether to beleive in something or not, in a something that can't be proven, but is not outright impossible. Such things include a long list of things, I'll just mention three here: god, reality, angel-kisses. I choose not to believe in God, but I choose to believe in reality and in the angel-kisses that teadipper referred to as "positive ions".

So there.

In conclusion, the situation is at an unsolvable impasse: I can't deliver the promise for looking stupid for myself and feeling guilty in cheating my own belief; but I feel guilty for not delivering the promise, since I am contravening my own code.

With this in mind, the angel-kiss or "floating positive spiritual ion" can't be created in this situation, but I do believe that in many others it can, only this is not one of them.

Overall, the lesson for me is avoid creating potentially guilt-producing impasses, and that I can only do by thinking before I speak. Kind of hard to do, as I am verbose, speak fast, think slow, so I am liable to trip over my own utterances again and again. But it would be nice, I think, if my mind were faster than my lips.

Yup, have you ever asked people what they think a prayer really is?

It almost always just boils down to thinking good things about a person, or wishing them well.

I have nothing against prayer it is the people who try to attach supernatural understandings they have of prayer that irks me.

wux,

The more interesting and revealing aspect of consideration is, on my view, what it is about keeping one's word that makes it land in the domain of morality. It reflects another interesting aspect of humanity...

One cannot take another at their word unless trust in the truthfulness of testimony is extant.

That holds good from language acquisition until death - without exception.

to use a promise as an excuse to so easily violate ones own ethical and/or moral standards would be an indication that one lack ethics and/or morals standards, so what good would a promise or their word be since both are based on ones ethics and morals

in some shape form or fashion...."Everyone Lies"

Prayer is interesting as a meditation. There have been studies showing
physical benefits of prayer - and I believe that there are real
physical and psychological benefits both for those who are praying and
getting themselves in a better frame of mind and also for those who
know that others are praying for them and who have a sense of caring
and affection from others which helps them cope with their illness
or situation.

Before I was an athiest I was a deist Buddhist, and meditations and understanding mental states was a big part of that.

Self knowledge helps for us to understand others. The social connection between us cannot be understated.

Most people would assume prayer needs to reference some deity, but I think it is more of a general effect than that myself.

Yes. My personal beliefs are still similar to that of Buddhists.

So with a pantheistic view of God, I see prayer as part of that
connection, and divine - although in my belief system there is no
need to call it supernatural as God and nature are unified. I think
that this aspect of my beliefs are completely consistent and in
harmony with all monotheistic religions including the Abrahamic
religions.

There is a real power to prayer and this is not lost on the religious
crowd. It is an inherent part of general religious observance for a
reason and that reason is that it helps all of us achieve a higher
state of being. As I see it.

since it was indicated that the sick person was a Christian then wouldn't a prayer be an attempt to keep them out of Heaven

Well . . . I think its not really in harmony in the sense that believing a god is nature is very different than believing a god has desires, perspective, wants, hates.

Theists believe these things, god as nature you really cant believe these things.

Personally when I hear go the route of god as nature I ask . . . why not just call it nature then?

It does not matter what you call God.

Theists do not in general believe in God's having anything like
human desires, perspective, wants or hates. God is described as
being infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, formless and
unknowable in entirety. Such attributes of God clearly transcend
simple human emotions as you state them. Such attributes are also
completely compatible with all monotheistic visions of God as
well as a pantheistic view of God.

Although some people may choose to think about aspects of God
in human terms this has its limitations and is clearly inadequate
as a description of God.

Your right, it is hard (impossible) to define something when you assign characteristics of it being everything and yet something at the same time.

Something can only have identity if it can be separate from something else. Everything cannot have an identity. God as nature makes no sense for good reason.

A universe creating mechanism would be a better label for god as nature if that "god" didn't include wants, desires, personality, hates ect.

If this god as nature is just a mechanism and not a consciousness, I see no reason to call it god. To me it is like the paradoxes we focus on in meditation to try to achieve enlightenment in Buddhism. The sound of one hand clapping ect. It really is nonsense not meant to make sense but to achieve a reverence and a WOAHHH factor not to really "know" anything. It sets out to alter a mental state, not provide knowledge.

I think it is valid to look at God as the sum of everything also
as a consciousness and also as the mechanism for the initiation of
the Universe.

The reason for the title "God"?
God is everything.



Nice and self-consistent. Intellectually unique and satisfying.

Is THAT what the point of them is? No wonder I've been having trouble. I've been trying to figure them out. I keep being attracted to Zen and then get p****d off by the paradoxes. I dunno, it seems to me there are enough unresolvable paradoxes in life already, why add more?

I used to have a reverent attitude toward life, but now I'm strictly matter of fact. Live in the moment and suck all the juice out of it that you can. Even that is hard enough for my little brain to handle.

Good perspective! Emmm juicy juicy life!