I read your article, "What I've learned from debating religious people around the world" with fascination. To provide you with some insight I am what is commonly called an evangelical Christian, but could not be accurately labeled as a full Calvinist. I try my best to communicate in a manner that saves others from perdition and I likewise strive to apply Christ's teaching to treat others as I want to be treated (Luke 6:31). To that end I am pleased that the "so-called Christian right" has been polite and hospitable to you. Please know that those who do not treat you appropriately may be Christian (we are all human "sinners" who make mistakes), but they are not "right" (pun intended).

Given my Christian perspective I, of course, respectfully disagree with your opinion on a variety of topics including, for example, your apparent assumption that the faith perception of "the freethinkers' group at the Air Force Academy" has any similarity to men trapped in foxholes and firefights in Afghanistan; as well as your apparent assumption that discovering DNA or a planet is worthy of academic praise for its "intelligent design", but that creating either DNA or a planet is not worthy of being called “intelligent design”. If my understanding of your assumptions on such issues is inaccurate, please forgive me and correct me (2 Timothy 3:16).

Nevertheless, the above lengthy introduction is not the purpose of this response. In reading your article it occurred to me that you need prayer. Even the American Medical Association has recognized that prayer helps. Please know that I am praying for you and please feel free to send your confidential prayer requests to steve@faithcounseling.net.

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH STEVE CARLOCK WHO, UNLIKE THE AUTHOR OF "WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM DEBATING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD", IS ALSO AN ATTORNEY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION, TRUTH OR LIE, AND PERCEPTION VS. REALITY. AS ONE WHO HAS BENEFITED FROM MR. CARLOCK'S COUNSEL, BOTH LEGALLY AND SPIRITUALLY, WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM READING, "WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM DEBATING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD," IS THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY WRITERS OUT THERE WHO TRY TOO HARD TO IMPRESS READERS BY USING CREATIVE COMBINATIONS OF "BIG" WORDS AND OTHER PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL LANGUAGE IN A THINLY DISGUISED ATTEMPT TO APPEAR "EDUCATED" ABOUT THE TRUTH WHEN, IN FACT, THEY ARE MERELY PUTTING THEIR OWN CREATIVE SPIN ON IT.

*facepalm*

Several scientific experiments have been performed that have shown that prayer does not help in healing physical illness. While you did not specify what exactly prayer helps in that poorly constucted sentence, it implies that the AMA believes that prayer helps people overcome physical illness.

It does not.

They do not.

Please do not misinform. Thank you.

Please know that I am praying for you and please feel free to send your confidential prayer requests to steve@faithcounseling.net.

Steve, when you pray on behalf of an atheist, and then pray on behalf of a co-religionist, does god give precedence to one over the other?

I'd kind of like you to pray, on my behalf since I'm an atheist, for USC to beat Oregon this weekend, but I'm a little confused by this whole business of divine intervention in sporting events; presumably, roughly equal numbers of believers on both sides of the field will petition the deity to favor their team, so why does god not arrange for every game to end in a tie? Does god pick sides? If he does, why is it that Notre Dame doesn't win every game?

While we're on the subject of the efficacy of prayer, why is it that -- according to you -- prayer has medical benefits, but I can find no evidence in the medical literature of a limb having been regrown as a result of prayer? If god can cure various maladies through prayerful intercession, why doesn't he cause missing limbs to regenerate? just asking.

I can see how you can completely not believe how Steve believes, but why do you need to mock him? Clearly he is well intentioned and wants good things for people. He is literally only offering to pray in private for someone.

Just asking.

"I can see how you can completely not believe how Steve believes, but why do you need to mock him? Clearly he is well intentioned and wants good things for people. He is literally only offering to pray in private for someone." The fact that Steve is, in your estimation, sincere and well-intentioned in his beliefs, does not render him, or those beliefs, immune from criticism, even of the jocular variety, particularly when those beliefs -- that invoking an unseen sky-god will have some direct influence on human events -- are objectively ridiculous. One excuses this behavior in children (is praying any different from writing a letter to santa claus?), but when an adult professes to undertake it unbidden on behalf of others, he opens himself to ridicule. just saying.

sorry about the spacing above - sometimes Slate doesn't like my MacBook

EarlyBird: I can see how you can completely not believe how Steve believes, but why do you need to mock him? Clearly he is well intentioned and wants good things for people.

Amen, EarlyBird.

See Cog, the concepts are tolerance and kindness. You know how atheists are always talking about how they can be just as good and kind as religious people, but without "sky gods" telling them to do so?

Clearly God didn't hear any prayers on behalf of the Trojan-enz, who got lubricated effectively by the Ducks.

Bravo, Oregon! If only my OSU Buckeyes had been able to dismantle them so effectively...:)

Clearly, judging by your posts, you are an individual with deep and heart-felt religious beliefs..

See Cog, the concepts are tolerance and kindness. You know how atheists are always talking about how they can be just as good and kind as religious people, but without "sky gods" telling them to do so?

EarlyBird, you and I both know that I could fill this forum with examples of the lack of "tolerance and kindness" drawn more or less equally from both religionists and atheists, and I don't know why you might have drawn the inference from my satirical remarks that I might assume that either side has a monopoly on virtue.

My original post was intended to be jocular, if biting; I suppose I could say to you and others, "lighten up dude, it's a joke", but instead I'll offer an apology for apparently having offended your sensibilities. That said, I continue to believe that the fervor of religious belief (manifested, for instance, in the offer to pray for others for whom it means nothing) does not grant its adherents any immunity from scepticism. For a godless heathen like me, belief in a "sky-god" is as silly as belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, and therefore as deserving of critique (but I like to think that I display "tolerance and kindness" insofar as I'm not in the habit of disabusing children of such beliefs).

Perhaps "Steve" (or his deity) got the last laugh at my expense on this matter after all: in my original post, I asked him to pray on my behalf for the USC Trojans football team in their match on Saturday against the University of Oregon Ducks: the heavily-favored Trojans lost 47-20. It's not enough to make me go to church or anything, but in future perhaps I'll be more temperate in my remarks.

Clearly God didn't hear any prayers on behalf of the Trojan-enz, who got lubricated effectively by the Ducks.

Bravo, Oregon! If only my OSU Buckeyes had been able to dismantle them so effectively...:)

Now I'm worried that I've brought down the wrath of god on the trojans and I'll be spending Jan 1 in Pasadena watching Cal and Penn State or something equally meaningless. LOL

what's with OSU running up the score on poor little New Mexico?

Well, I certainly do not believe that the faithful or atheists have a monopoly on virtue, that's for sure. I just like to point out that when a religious person offers to pray for you, they are sincere, and it's not an insult or a negative in any way. The appropriate answer is "thanks" even if in your head you are thinking "you nut."