[Changleen]

Well, here you go folks - you heard it here first. Prayer has zero effect on it's subject. I for one, am shocked and amazed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401695.html

Prayer's Power to Heal Strangers Is Examined
Cardiac Patients in New Study Fared No Better With Spiritual Intercession

Praying for sick strangers does not improve their prospects of recovering, according to a large, carefully designed study that casts doubt on the widely held belief that being prayed for can help a person heal.

The study of more than 700 heart patients, one of the most ambitious attempts to test the medicinal power of prayer, showed that those who had people praying for them from a distance, and without their knowledge, were no less likely to suffer a major complication, end up back in the hospital or die.

While skeptics of prayer welcomed the results, other researchers questioned the findings, and proponents of prayer maintained that God's influence lies beyond the reach of scientific validation.

Did we really need to spend the money to make this obvious? Apparantly so. What a ridiculous state of affairs in the year 2005.

 

[reflux]

I disagree with these results for one basic reason. If I'm sick and some people, whether they be friends or strangers, tell me that I'm in their prayers, it means that they genuinely care about my well-being. Knowing this, I will approach my situation with a more positive frame of mind; and it's a well-known fact that your attitude can have an impact on your health, be it positive or negative.

You disagree?

 

[Silver]

I disagree with these results for one basic reason. If I'm sick and some people, whether they be friends or strangers, tell me that I'm in their prayers, it means that they genuinely care about my well-being. Knowing this, I will approach my situation with a more positive frame of mind; and it's a well-known fact that your attitude can have an impact on your health, be it positive or negative.

You disagree?

Do a double blind trial, and we'll know.

"Prayer can be and is helpful," Lawarence said. "But to think that you can research it is inconceivable to me. Prayer is presumably a way of addressing God, and there's no way to scientificlly test God. God is not subject to scientific research."

So, we can't research it, but he's sure that it works. Nice little gig there...if you happen to be a director of pastoral care at a hospital. What an asshat.

 

[Silver]

Also, then there is this:

Marilyn Schlitz of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, Calif., said the study showed the need for additional research. She is conducting a federally funded study testing the power of prayer to help wounds heal.

We waste federal money on this ****? Thank God (yes, we have him to thank) that we can't use it on something that might be useful, like stem cells.

 

[Changleen]

I disagree with these results for one basic reason. If I'm sick and some people, whether they be friends or strangers, tell me that I'm in their prayers, it means that they genuinely care about my well-being. Knowing this, I will approach my situation with a more positive frame of mind; and it's a well-known fact that your attitude can have an impact on your health, be it positive or negative.

You disagree?

No, If you know people want you to get well and feel better, that's obviously a plus to your healing. That wasn't what this was about. In fact the premis was the people being prayed for didn't know that they were being prayed for.

 

[Changleen]

Also, then there is this:

Marilyn Schlitz of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, Calif., said the study showed the need for additional research. She is conducting a federally funded study testing the power of prayer to help wounds heal.

We waste federal money on this ****? Thank God (yes, we have him to thank) that we can't use it on something that might be useful, like stem cells.

****in A. That whole institute of Neotic Science looks a little suspect too.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

I disagree with these results for one basic reason. If I'm sick and some people, whether they be friends or strangers, tell me that I'm in their prayers, it means that they genuinely care about my well-being. Knowing this, I will approach my situation with a more positive frame of mind; and it's a well-known fact that your attitude can have an impact on your health, be it positive or negative.

You disagree?

Your missing the point. What your talking about is a psychological reaction contained wholly in the realm of the physical biology. Using strangers, with the prayee having no knowledge of said prayers, is a way to eliminate such biological factors and focus primarily on the metaphysical. The results point [once again] toward the power of God being within our own minds. This is not to say such power is bad.

We waste federal money on this ****? Thank God (yes, we have him to thank) that we can't use it on something that might be useful, like stem cells.

I would hardly call a counterattack a waste of money. The Religious Right is waging a fairly serious War and the more hard evidence we have against their absurd declarations the better. Although, I would tend to agree with an assertion of Darwinism befitting to those who rely entirely on prayer for medical treatment.

 

[Changleen]

I would hardly call a counterattack a waste of money. The Religious Right is waging a fairly serious War and the more hard evidence we have against their absurd declarations the better.

Good point. It's a shame it's necassary.

 

[reflux]

No, If you know people want you to get well and feel better, that's obviously a plus to your healing. That wasn't what this was about. In fact the premis was the people being prayed for didn't know that they were being prayed for.

Oh, okay, I entirely missed the point. I promise to read the article before posting my thoughts on it next time (note: I still haven't read it).

 

[Silver]

I would hardly call a counterattack a waste of money. The Religious Right is waging a fairly serious War and the more hard evidence we have against their absurd declarations the better. Although, I would tend to agree with an assertion of Darwinism befitting to those who rely entirely on prayer for medical treatment.

Two problems: One is that the woman I quoted works at what looks VERY suspiciously like New Age energy crystal open your mind bull****.

The second is that the Religious Right doesn't accept scientific evidence that contradicts their views. So researching prayer is pissing money away, no matter what happens.

 

[enkidu]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5071401695.html

Quote:
Prayer's Power to Heal Strangers Is Examined
Cardiac Patients in New Study Fared No Better With Spiritual Intercession

Praying for sick strangers does not improve their prospects of recovering, according to a large, carefully designed study that casts doubt on the widely held belief that being prayed for can help a person heal.

So this "scientific study" is checking if prayers in general have Harry Potter - like magical property? Then, I'm with Changleen: "Did we really need to spend the money to make this obvious?"

I enjoy Harry Potter series as an imaginative entertainment, but I surely wouldn't consider the whirling of the wand as the main sole property of prayers.

 

[binary visions]

Funny study.

The people whose beliefs it was designed to cast doubt on won't listen to its conclusion.

The people who would listen to its conclusion didn't need to be told.

So who wins? Certainly not the taxpayers. I suppose it's important that we keep these scientists and study-organizers gainfully employed

 

[MikeD]

I enjoy Harry Potter series as an imaginative entertainment, but I surely wouldn't consider the whirling of the wand as the main sole property of prayers.

Well, whomever you are we behind that screenname, can safely say you're not the Pope...

 

[Westy]

Two problems: One is that the woman I quoted works at what looks VERY suspiciously like New Age energy crystal open your mind bull****.

Energy Crystals, the next government research project?

 

[MikeD]

Energy Crystals, the next government research project?

I forsee a black helicopter in your very, very near future. Or maybe just a blacked-out Pinto.

MD

 

[Westy]

I forsee a black helicopter in your very, very near future. Or maybe just a blacked-out Pinto.

MD

If your the G-Man in the heli, bring your bike.

 

[ohio]

That study is so wrong. One time I got sick, and then I prayed, and then I got better. Therefore prayer works.

 

[$tinkle]

whatcha y'all think about witches then?

i spose what you guys think of mainstream christianity/judaism/islam is what i think of ramtha (j.z. knight)

so there we are: one bigass tent full of sick infidels

 

[Westy]

That study is so wrong. One time I got sick, and then I prayed, and then I got better. Therefore prayer works.

Were you at bandcamp?

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

i spose what you guys think of mainstream christianity/judaism/islam is what i think of ramtha (j.z. knight)

BINGO!!!!! Thats EXACTLY what I think of mainstream christianity/judaism/islam.

 

[Changleen]

whatcha y'all think about witches then?

i spose what you guys think of mainstream christianity/judaism/islam is what i think of ramtha (j.z. knight)

so there we are: one bigass tent full of sick infidels

Pretty much. It's only religious folk who are refusing to see the sham and still holding onto the conatations though.

 

[enkidu]

Pretty much. It's only religious folk who are refusing to see the sham and still holding onto the conatations though.

So, in other words, are you praying to prove what a sham praying folks are believing in? You wish (another form of prayer, mind you) them to believe your belief instead of theirs. . . because you believe it's far superior to theirs. What you are trying to do looks just as "religious" to me.

I still admire your "evangelical" fervor, though.

 

[Andyman_1970]

i spose what you guys think of mainstream christianity/judaism/islam is what i think of ramtha (j.z. knight)

I will say the TV types (Benny Hinn for instance) give me that vibe..........the whole 1-800-BIGHAIR thing is a bit over the top and sterotypical.

 

[Andyman_1970]

BINGO!!!!! Thats EXACTLY what I think of mainstream christianity/judaism/islam.

Define "mainstream" - are you referring to ultra conservative fundamentalist? I myself would be considered mainstream with reference to Christanity.......you can't tell me that I come off to others like this chick?

 

[$tinkle]

Pretty much. It's only religious folk who are refusing to see the sham and still holding onto the conatations though.

so if this "sham" inspires those to sacrifice to self & pursue altruistic motives w/o compensation or recognition, is that just a nice benefit?

i'm w/ andy on the big hair thing & will take it a bit further: if jesus thought t.v. was so important to spreading the gospel, why didn't he invent it back then, or wait until modern times to hang out?

this is just one of a few questions/curiousities (sp) i kick around w.r.t. man's faith vs. man's efforts. (if it weren't for andy being here, we'd most likely find out once & for all what one hand clapping sounds like)

 

[Andyman_1970]

(if it weren't for andy being here, we'd most likely find out once & for all what one hand clapping sounds like)

ROTFLOL.........................

 

[MMike]

That study is so wrong. One time I got sick, and then I prayed, and then I got better. Therefore prayer works.

This rock I have in my hand keeps tigers away.....

 

[Andyman_1970]

so if this "sham" inspires those to sacrifice to self & pursue altruistic motives w/o compensation or recognition, is that just a nice benefit?

The problem I see with evanglical Christianity in the US these days is that our "sham" doesn't exibit those characteristics you list - we tend to be more concerned with being right rather than doing what is right. If by and large conservative Christians would shut their mouths regarding abortion and gay marriage, and instead volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center, or adopt one of those babies or befriend someone who is gay and show them some unconditional kindness.

The problem I see, is that for all our teaching about how we are to unconditionally love people, we don't. We treat love like currency, that we with hold in order to change a behavior or prompt someone to change their way of thinking on an issue. I've seen very few conservative Christians (myself included) that truly unconditionally love people, that truly treat everyone they run into as if they were interacting with Jesus Himself. Being morally right (while important) has eclipsed the Biblical fact that regardless of what a person professes to believe as followers of Jesus we are called to love every human unconditionally.

 

[$tinkle]

i've been watching the Power of Intention on PBS from time-to-time (usually airs during the pledge drives - heh!), and after reading a quick Q&A, it seems to be parallel to scientology. however, these first ones seem to share associated claims of prayer:

Q: You describe "the power of intention" as the driving force in the universe. What drove you to write this book and tape this special for public TV?

A: I was, quite simply, inspired. I think that there's a difference between motivation and inspiration. Motivation is when you get an idea yourself and then you put motion to it, motive to it... and you feel like a driving force to go out and accomplish something. And people have told me my entire lifetime that I am highly motivated. In fact, some people call me "the father of motivation," which is strange. I have eight children and I don't need another one called motivation!

Inspiration is the opposite of motivation. It's what happens when an idea gets a hold of you from someplace that you can't even identify and you feel almost compelled to let that idea carry you. That's what happened with this book and this show, and I'm in awe of how it came about. Intention is thought of in this program and in this book as a field of energy that we connect to, which will carry us, rather than something that we will do. I was the observer to watching the book write itself, and to watching all the forces that came together to bring this PBS program together - the right people showed up, the right funding showed up, the right place to do it showed up, the right venue, the right way of getting the audience there. Everything just flowed. That's what happens when you get inspired.

Q: How has the "power of intention" worked in your own life?

A: It has brought the right people into my life; it has allowed me to recover from a heart attack; it has allowed me to keep myself in shape; it has allowed me to have divine relationships; and it allowed my relationships with my children to improve dramatically. And everything about it has been in a very positive and loving vein.

do those of you who reject the idea of god buy into this? it's not a trap, just trying get some other POVs

 

[Changleen]

No. It's all self serving or self deluding bull****. All you religious types constantly try to liken the experience of an atheist to yours, somehow associating belief with the concept.

In reality we look around us and see things just as they are. There is no divine intervention, no unknowable truths - there's just stuff we've figured out and stuff we haven't figured out yet. The human mind is an amazing thing, as well it should be after so much evolution. Things like this guy claiming he 'tapped into an energy grid' to write his book is just metaphor or self delusion brought on by the first semi-original thought he's ever had. "Inspiration is the opposite of motivation" No it isn't you retard. De-motivation is the opposite of motivation. Being uninspired is the opposite of being inspired.

Being religious is the conscious acceptance of an unprovable, unknowable and in most cases highly unlikely set of beliefs, many of which fly directly in the face of our own repeatable and testable experience of the world. Why would any god wish to remain unprovable? There is zero serious proof of any religious tennent, there is plenty of proof that religion is a twisted scam, manipulated by men for their own ends, yet many people find it comforting to believe in something bigger than the affairs of men. It's quite understandable, but fanatical devotion to a story is, at the end of the day, a sign of delusion. We normally treat people for that, often with rubber rooms. For some reason, mainly it's popularity, this particular delusion is still socially acceptable, just like alcohol being one of the only remaining legal drugs, despite the fact that we know exactly how harmful it is. People like to drink it and there's a huge market for it.

I support the right of people to choose what they do with their own lives and to believe what they want to believe. You should be able to poison yourself with Alcohol if you want. You should be able to believe in stories if you want.

I've said it before and here it is again: This is all fine until it starts affecting other people. That's why it's illegal to drink drive. You could kill other people. That's simply unfair. That's why the intelligent people who founded America and most of Europe and the developed western nations insisted on a seperation of Church and State. You don't legislate and make rational decisons about the future of your country under the intoxication of 'beliefs'. You use facts and rational thought to derive a logical conclusion.

A lot of people who are religious understand this. After all there are religious scientists, religious engineers, religious everything. However these people (generally) don't allow their relgion to get int he way of their work. There is a rationalisation that occurs in their minds. When an engineer built the bay bridge, he didn't take his cues from jeesus walking on water, and when a scientist investigates fluid dynamics he doesn't take into account the parting of the red sea. The problem comes when you allow people who cannot perform this simple, normal, rationalisation to make decisions for everyone.

America is now starting to drive under the intoxication of religion. The banning of stem cell research, the opposition to any form of abortion, the violent hatred of gays are all manifestations of the christian right's belief based, deluded views being imposed on the majority. You are regressing. You didn't get where you are in the world today by shunning science as you now are. When you landed on the moon, did anyone allow NASA to say, "This problem is too hard, maybe we just just trust God to sort it out". **** no. But that preceisly what you're allowing now. Wake up and get some coffee down your neck before you end up like Saudi Arabia.

 

[$tinkle]

No. It's all self serving or self deluding bull****. All you religious types constantly try to liken the experience of an atheist to yours, somehow associating belief with the concept.

hardly.
but continue to infer that to your delight.

Why would any god wish to remain unprovable?

"wish"? to whom would he wish?

It's quite understandable, but fanatical devotion to a story is, at the end of the day, a sign of delusion. We normally treat people for that, often with rubber rooms.

so, do you have a faith-based reason for believing that 9/11 was a put-up job by the bush administration?

I've said it before and here it is again: This is all fine until it starts affecting other people. That's why it's illegal to drink drive. You could kill other people. That's simply unfair.

relate this philosophy to taxes please, or infidelity, or lying for any reason. maybe some other people need killin'...i'm sure you have your justified list

That's why the intelligent people who founded America and most of Europe and the developed western nations insisted on a seperation of Church and State.

i insist you go do some reading about the royal family

You don't legislate and make rational decisons about the future of your country under the intoxication of 'beliefs'. You use facts and rational thought to derive a logical conclusion.

that's pretty laughable, coming from someone who not only lacks an original thought about 9/11, but locks onto a position based entirely on who's in the opposite camp.

A lot of people who are religious understand this. After all there are religious scientists, religious engineers, religious everything. However these people (generally) don't allow their relgion to get int he way of their work. There is a rationalisation that occurs in their minds. When an engineer built the bay bridge, he didn't take his cues from jeesus walking on water, and when a scientist investigates fluid dynamics he doesn't take into account the parting of the red sea. The problem comes when you allow people who cannot perform this simple, normal, rationalisation to make decisions for everyone.

you're all over the map on this one...bring it back, please.

America is now starting to drive under the intoxication of religion. The banning of stem cell research, the opposition to any form of abortion, the violent hatred of gays are all manifestations of the christian right's belief based, deluded views being imposed on the majority. You are regressing. You didn't get where you are in the world today by shunning science as you now are. When you landed on the moon, did anyone allow NASA to say, "This problem is too hard, maybe we just just trust God to sort it out". **** no. But that preceisly what you're allowing now. Wake up and get some coffee down your neck before you end up like Saudi Arabia.

stem cell research isn't banned outright, just the federal funding of harvesting of yet-to-be embryonic stem cells; D & C is a form of abortion, never to be banned, but there is social opposition to capricious abortion-on-demand; far more examples are found in the religion of peace's camp as to the 'violent hatred of gays'. to wit: care to ask choudhary what's up with his violent hatred of gays?

Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary will not condemn the traditional Koran punishment of stoning to death some homosexuals and people who have extra-marital affairs.

But the Labour MP - who has struggled with his "role" as the sole parliamentary representative of the local Muslim community - is not advocating the practice here.
Mr Choudhary once again found himself between a rock and a hard place on questions of Islam when he appeared on TV3's 60 Minutes programme last night.

It was examining warnings about extreme fundamentalism within New Zealand's Islamic community.

Mr Choudhary was asked: "Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?"

He replied: " No, no. Certainly what the Koran says is correct.

"In those societies, not here in New Zealand," he added.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Define "mainstream" - are you referring to ultra conservative fundamentalist? I myself would be considered mainstream with reference to Christanity.......you can't tell me that I come off to others like this chick?

I would hardly consider you "mainstream" Andyman. Exception to the rule would be a more fitting description, and no, you don't come off like this Ramtha nutter.
The mainstream fits into the problem you describe here:

The problem I see with evanglical Christianity in the US these days is that our "sham" doesn't exibit those characteristics you list - we tend to be more concerned with being right rather than doing what is right. If by and large conservative Christians would shut their mouths regarding abortion and gay marriage, and instead volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center, or adopt one of those babies or befriend someone who is gay and show them some unconditional kindness.

The problem I see, is that for all our teaching about how we are to unconditionally love people, we don't. We treat love like currency, that we with hold in order to change a behavior or prompt someone to change their way of thinking on an issue. I've seen very few conservative Christians (myself included) that truly unconditionally love people, that truly treat everyone they run into as if they were interacting with Jesus Himself. Being morally right (while important) has eclipsed the Biblical fact that regardless of what a person professes to believe as followers of Jesus we are called to love every human unconditionally.

God-Fearing and all the dysfunction that goes along with fear, is far more prevalent than God-Loving. Unfortunately.

 

[Changleen]

Wow, $tinkle, you really are UTTERLY incapable of sticking to the topic. This thread is called 'The Power of Prayer' and after some discussion of the asthetics of belief I've made a post which talks about why irrational belief should not be the basis of rational decions in society, and you've responded by talking about Taxes, 9/11 and the Royal Families of pre-imperial Europe and ended up talking about some NZ MP's denial of the Koran, (which may I point out is an example of the behaviour I was espousing) as a attempt at a rebutal of my argument. You really should get a job in Bull****ing.

I answered your question straight. I said "No. It's BS", and then went on to explain why I felt like that. I asked some questions of you, or whoever may deem to reply to them. You have decided to try, but instead of answers, you make comparisons which are completely out of context, ask questions as answers, and simply try to discredit the parts you can't immediatly think of an answer for. Pretty lame, dude.

hardly.
but continue to infer that to your delight.

YOU YOURSELF called us 'all infidels', implying that as we all have different points of view, we are all wrong in each other's eyes. Using 'infidels' in this way is EXACTLY likening the experience of an atheist to a religious person. Enkidu then did the same. In this very thread. Care to rethink that answer?

"wish"? to whom would he wish?

Why can't you just give me a straight answer instead of being pointlessly pedantic about a turn of phrase? Here let me rephrase it for you: Why would any god want to remain unprovable? Can you give me a straight answer now?

so, do you have a faith-based reason for believing that 9/11 was a put-up job by the bush administration?

No, I have reviewed the actual, measurable evidence such as the speed of the collaspse of the twin towers, compared it to the government's story and found a gap. No 'irrational belief' is required. Besides, the sort of belief you are alluding to me holding is utterly different to that of believing in a inherantly unprovable creation faith. It is an
idea that a certain theory of events is wrong based on measurable evidence. Can you not see the difference?

relate this philosophy to taxes please, or infidelity, or lying for any reason. maybe some other people need killin'...i'm sure you have your justified list

Do I really need to? It's pretty obvious I think. We consider infidelity or lying wrong because in most cases they hurt other people. Asking me to drill down into this argument is simply a way of avoiding my conclusion: That legislating based on relgious belief is irrational and harmful to the development of science and eventually your economy, society and country. If I'm wrong, explain to me why none of the world's theocracies are leading the way in any scientifice discipline?

i insist you go do some reading about the royal family

FFS, I'm not talking about 700 years ago, I'm talking about contemporary politics you idiot. The seperation of church and state is a fact in most of the western world. What are you even talking about? What the **** was the point of that comment? To make yourself look irrelevant? ah, no, it was yet another attempt to draw the conversation of topic because you have no real answers.

that's pretty laughable, coming from someone who not only lacks an original thought about 9/11, but locks onto a position based entirely on who's in the opposite camp.

Once again, you've failed to address the point. You attack me and my politics rather than try and form a rational answer. Pretty pathetic. Anyway, how is the originality of my ideas relevant? I don't have any 'original' ideas about electrons or quantum physics either, but they still exist and behave as I expect. And how is my position based on 'on who's in the opposite camp'? Unlike you, I base my judgement on people's actions rather than my perception of their ideology. My objection to the government's actions on 9/11 is, as I've said before, based on measurable evidence. Now we've cleared that up maybe you can have another go at attacking my point if you actually belive it to be wrong: "You don't legislate and make rational decisons about the future of your country under the intoxication of 'beliefs'. You use facts and rational thought to derive a logical conclusion." What part of that do you disagree with?

you're all over the map on this one...bring it back, please.

How am I all over the map? If you don't understand it, read it again, slower. It's a fairly simple point. We don't use the 'evidence' of the bible to make rational decisons in our everyday lives, because the 'evidence' is clearly flawed and at odds with our everyday experience. Why, therefore, would we use it as the basis of other legislation, especially when said legislation has the potential to retard science and harm segments of society?

stem cell research isn't banned outright, just the federal funding of harvesting of yet-to-be embryonic stem cells;

It's a step towards the goal of christain conservatives to ban this technology. You know it. As is the increased hostility towards gays, and the moves towards banning abortion. These are policies of the christian right.

Care to try again, or do you really have nothing to contribute than threadjack?

 

[ohio]

This rock I have in my hand keeps tigers away.....

MMike, I will buy that rock from you.

 

[enkidu]

Changleen, I agree with you that "legislating based on (Christian Right Fundamentalists' skewed and limited) religious belief is irrational and harmful to the development of science and eventually the economy, society and country" of the United States.

But IMHO that doesn't prove that you are justified in negating the validity of ALL faiths and prayerful ways of living.

As Andyman wrote above even among Christians there are different levels of understanding and practice. Only few of us are disciplined enough to "truly unconditionally love people as followers of Jesus". I assume that followers of other religions, too, are at different levels of reaching their ideal state of minds, bodies and souls.

It takes serious work of searching within our thoughts / egos and careful reflections on our relationships with nature and the world around us (much like your own passionate pursuit of truth through rationalism) to decide to accept the disciplines hammered out through out the ages to reach that ideal state of vigorous faith. There are many forms of meditations and prayers like Yoga, Zen, Liturgy of the Hours. . . which our ancestors left for us through their trials and errors.

It is true that there are plenty of examples of "twisted scams, manipulated by men for their own ends". And perhaps this empire thirsty government we have now is one of the prime examples.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I would hardly consider you "mainstream" Andyman. Exception to the rule would be a more fitting description, and no, you don't come off like this Ramtha nutter.
The mainstream fits into the problem you describe here:

While I appreciate your kind commets (my post was not intended to elicit compliments) the point is in my theology I'm relatively mainstream as protestant Christianity goes. Those frothing fundamentalists are a vocal minority at best. Since there are so many different "flavors" of Christianity these days, not only theologically but also in their social leanings I think it's important to be as specific as possible - unless of course people like broad inaccurate generalities............

 

[$tinkle]

Wow, $tinkle, you really are UTTERLY incapable of sticking to the topic. This thread is called 'The Power of Prayer' and after some discussion of the asthetics of belief I've made a post which talks about why irrational belief should not be the basis of rational decions in society, and you've responded by talking about Taxes, 9/11 and the Royal Families of pre-imperial Europe and ended up talking about some NZ MP's denial of the Koran, (which may I point out is an example of the behaviour I was espousing) as a attempt at a rebutal of my argument. You really should get a job in Bull****ing.

while you assert (in a spectacularly & demonstrably incorrect fashion) i'm incapable of staying on topic, what is true is that you have drawn an arbitrary & inconsistent line of what shall be considered to be 'on topic'. You use analogies pertinent to the topic at hand, but seem to dismiss mine when they recall your existing & atavistic philosophies which are inconsitent w/ your latest one. it's all part of the ongoing saga of 'unpacking changleen'.... 'therapy' if you will.

A perfect example of your lack of ability to sink your teeth into this topic is when i draw out that your projection of mainstream christianity harbors violent hatred toward gays, is actually rampant not only in radical islam, but the NZ leadership. He didn't condemn the koran (this was evident in the post had you chose to read it instead of skimming it), but rather when choudhary was asked: "Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?" He replied: "No, no. Certainly what the Koran says is correct."

YOU YOURSELF called us 'all infidels', implying that ...

ok, stop right there, WE ARE ALL infidels, kafirs, non-followers of islam; hopefully you now understand this, inshallah.

Why would any god want to remain unprovable? Can you give me a straight answer now?

you're begging the question & projecting your limited understanding coupled with your non-existent belief in creating a flawed fallacy. this is simply a silly question

No, I have reviewed the actual, measurable evidence such as the speed of the collaspse of the twin towers, compared it to the government's story and found a gap.

to date, you still have not provided this 'gap' by a disinterested 3rd party. i will gladly do my part in making you look the fool once again if you care to re-engage this topic.

We consider infidelity or lying wrong because in most cases they hurt other people.

since when did you start caring about hurting other people? infidelity hurts someone's feelings, it does not cause literal heart ache. You are being demonstrably hypocritical in nearly every post when you use as a basis for your argument that something is wrong because it "hurts other people"

That legislating based on relgious belief is irrational and harmful to the development of science and eventually your economy, society and country. If I'm wrong, explain to me why none of the world's theocracies are leading the way in any scientifice discipline?

you are attempting to create a false dilemma;

The seperation of church and state is a fact in most of the western world.

and facts are citable; so show me this separation (not as a consequence, but as a purpose)

Unlike you, I base my judgement on people's actions rather than my perception of their ideology.

did you even read your comments on stem cell research, gays, & abortion as they relate (by proxy) to the bush administration?

"You don't legislate and make rational decisons about the future of your country under the intoxication of 'beliefs'. You use facts and rational thought to derive a logical conclusion."

yes, b/c each of our believing presidents, governors, senators were in abject intellectual poverty due to their beliefs, and we are continuing to undue this paltry system of a theocracy. Once again, you've created a false dilemma

We don't use the 'evidence' of the bible to make rational decisons in our everyday lives, because the 'evidence' is clearly flawed and at odds with our everyday experience.

what in particular? don't give me that "you're off-topic" response; this is certainly germaine to the thread topic. so, bring your A-game on this one, making sure what my position is first

It's a step towards the goal of christain conservatives to ban this technology. You know it. As is the increased hostility towards gays, and the moves towards banning abortion. These are policies of the christian right.

i've never met one of these "science is bad" christian conservatives you speak of; this is your white whale, dude. under the 2nd consecutive conservative administration, you cannot demonstrate that hostility has increased toward gays; in fact, there's been more rediculous legislation drafted in the name of protecting them. and abortion? that's all you got? as science marches on, we are better able to give pre-natal care, and thusly do not have the pressing 'need' to end viable life. it is the incorrectly held 'belief' by people like you that human life has no value until it's expressed from the womb. you know why our infant death rate isn't the lowest in the world? because we try until the bitter end to sustain life, whereas a good part of the 3rd world will reject a non-pink, straight from the oven at 40 weeks healthy child with minimal defects.

these are the actual policies of the christian right.

Care to try again, or do you really have nothing to contribute than threadjack?

as time permits, m'lad

 

[Mackie]

i've never met one of these "science is bad" christian conservatives you speak of; this is your white whale, dude.

I'm staying out of this whole prayer arguement, but I'll comment on this - it's not so much an overt attitude, it's the actions that speak most loudly about the anti-science nature of the current administration.

The President has recommended a 2.4% increase in NSF funding for this year, well below the 3.5% rate of biomedical research inflation. Increases are typically at or above the rate of inflation.

The President has recommended just a 0.7% increase in NIH funding for this year, once again well below the 3.5% rate of biomedical research inflation.

Also, the House has attempted to legislate some science, by tying NIH funding to the de-funding of two stem cell related grants approved through the NIH peer-review process.

None of this stuff helps us in our role of world leader in scientific and biomedical research.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The President has recommended a 2.4% increase in NSF funding for this year, well below the 3.5% rate of biomedical research inflation. Increases are typically at or above the rate of inflation.

The President has recommended just a 0.7% increase in NIH funding for this year, once again well below the 3.5% rate of biomedical research inflation.

Also, the House has attempted to legislate some science, by tying NIH funding to the de-funding of two stem cell related grants approved through the NIH peer-review process.

None of this stuff helps us in our role of world leader in scientific and biomedical research.

Although "W" openly professes to be a Christian, I think it's somewhat of an assumption to think that the budget items you list are a direct result of the perceived ignorant mindset of the Christian who when sick says "we don't need to go to the Dr. lets just pray and have enough faith that God will take care of my allergies........"

If you can prove that the above spending is a direct result of "W" faith I'd like to see it, but otherwise that seems to be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Mackie]

Although "W" openly professes to be a Christian, I think it's somewhat of an assumption to think that the budget items you list are a direct result of the perceived ignorant mindset of the Christian who when sick says "we don't need to go to the Dr. lets just pray and have enough faith that God will take care of my allergies........"

If you can prove that the above spending is a direct result of "W" faith I'd like to see it, but otherwise that seems to be a bit of a stretch.

No. You're reading too much into my post. I never gave any motivational attribution at all. All I gave was an example where a group of self-described conservative christians acted in a way that I and others have interpreted at anti-science.
Could be becuse they are consrvative.
Could be because they are christian.
Could be some other factor.
I don't know.

Some people, however, have linked Bush's opposition to stem-cell research to his faith. I don't know why he opposes it, but I think that's a rather short-sighted position to hold.