Power of prayer fails.....
- Thread starter Reactor
- Start date
Well if they truly followed the word™ they wouldn't need heart surgery in the first place. Stupid sinners.
Obviously they were not praying hard enough.
I dont even understand the point of prayer. Like, when people say "All our thoughts and prayers are with them" is that actually supposed to help?
I mean, will god just NOT respond if enough people dont pray? How many prayers does it take to sway gods opinion on something?
I mean, will god just NOT respond if enough people dont pray? How many prayers does it take to sway gods opinion on something?
Obviously more than 1800.....BurlyShirley said:
Well, then why would you pray in the first place? In fact, why would you ever get out of bed? If God wanted you to get out of bed, he would move you himself.
I've got enough problems with chess, let alone having a personal plan for every living thing on earth. Guess that's why I'm not God.
BuddhaRoadkill said:
Oh noes! God is making me touch myself again!
/fap fap fap
Religion, the crutch of the weakminded, scared sheep.
Religion, the most dominant cause of bloodshed in recorded history.
When will the world get a clue and quit believing in a man in the sky and start believing in the man next to him?
Religion, the most dominant cause of bloodshed in recorded history.
When will the world get a clue and quit believing in a man in the sky and start believing in the man next to him?
[Dr. Evil finger crook] Is it a distempered God? [/Dr. Evil finger crook]LordOpie said:
Right about the time a hot MILF drops in their collective lap.Zark said:
In all seriousness, I'm wit ya!
I'm with you except for this bit:Zark said:
Religion, the most dominant cause of bloodshed in recorded history.
Which just doesn't stand up when you examine it hard.
I don't want to get into the theological implications, but that's possibly the most flawed study in recent history: there is no control on the variable, and no way of knowing the state of the variable. In addition, there is no ethical/moral way to ask somebody NOT to pray for a patient. The fact is, almost every one of these patients was prayed for, and the theology of prayer goes much deeper than whether or not God does exactly what we want him to.
I see that you remember that the last time you tried to argue that point you lost...Changleen said:
That's just like, your opinion dude.fluff said:
Just because you don't count ideologies as a form of religion despite their having essentially the same properties as a regular religion... They both are based on a fixed interpretation of reality in a very significant way. A presumtion of final destination. That in turn facilitates belief based behaviours. And by behaviours I mean retardedness.
Ok, so you want to move the goalposts? I think you'll have a hard time convincing many intelligent people that ideologies and religion are the same thing. Any definition of religion includes belief in a deity, any ideology that does not revolve around that position is not religion.Changleen said:
i thought buddishm was considered a religion...fluff said:
on the other hand, how´d you define a deity??? is deity a fixed concept? or is it made up by its "religion"?
what if a "religion" consider "love" its deity? what if its "pleasure", "knowledge"? are those acceptable "deities"?
my definition of religion is anything rooted on an absolutist idea. now, that would include the human rights declaration, being "universal" and all.... but i guess thats an acceptable shortcome .
There is a degree of debate over whether Buddhism should be considered a religion - some see it more as a philosophy.ALEXIS_DH said:
I don't see how you could see the universal declaration of human rights as a religion, again it is more a philosophy, or an ethical/moral framework.
well, in my definition of religion being anything absolutist... human rights are "universal" (thus absolutist). the part of being a product of logical ethical dissertation is not that relevant in my definition of religion.fluff said:
only that is has been elevated to "universal absolute"
on the need of a deity, like i said, i dont think its necesary for a religion.
Well, if you use personal definitions of words rather than accepted and understood definitions of word that's fine, just don't expect everyone else to know what you mean....ALEXIS_DH said:
A diety or two is generally accepted as mandatory for a religion, hence the debate over whether Buddhism is really a religion, although Buddhism also does not deny the existence of gods (devas iirc) and hence muddies the waters.
They didn't ask anyone not to pray for their loved ones. They mentioned that. The real fact is that we don't know (nor do the people conducting the study I bet) how much the subjects were prayed for by their families. Some may not have received prayer at all, some might have received tons of it.kinghami3 said:
You are right that the controls on this study were not very good, but how can you make them better? That's a major problem with studies of this kind. The bottom line is that the "power of god" is in the end outside of the scope of science.
Incidentally, in these studies they never have a group that prays for the death of the person. I wonder why.
Old Man G Funk said:
or permanent disfigurement, or loss of financial stability, or ....
good point.
I wonder what would happen if ten people, five of whom were 'Christians' were taken hostage by Iraqis who threatened to execute 5 and set 5 free. Would Christian groups pray for the deliverance of the Christians, thereby effective praying for the non-believers to die?Old Man G Funk said:
kinghami3 said:
You'll just have to have "faith" that it was right.
Meh, we'll just open him up on the table, turn out the lights, flip off the ventilator and see what happens....oughtta be a hoot...Reactor said:
Not ment to be hurtful to hami. He's my PNW brethren. The rest can suck it!!
Sorry, I didn't clarify that I wasn't arguing the pointOld Man G Funk said:
I don't think there is any good way to do a study like that without breaking some serious ethical and moral codes, which in my mind makes it absurd that they could really come to any conclusion with this study
ink: help me!Secret Squirrel said:
no offense taken
religions require faith in their god, if you could provide physical proof of God, then faith wouldn't be required, thus alieviating a major tenent of the faith. Therefore, God cannot provide proof else he remove peoples faith. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Also know as an easy out when that stubborn science thing rears it's head.
Also know as an easy out when that stubborn science thing rears it's head.
fluff said:
No... I seem to to remember he won, and you just burried you head in the theological sand.
Then you didn't understand either...DaveW said:No... I seem to to remember he won, and you just burried you head in the theological sand.
You also have to look at the hugely divergent forms Buddhism has taken.fluff said:
The original form is much more of a metaphysical philosophy of life, as are some Far Eastern interpretations, but there are plenty of forms with entities/deities to pray to and give money to in order to cure your ills for you.
(Check out Amitaba Buddhism...pray to Amida Buddah, the supernatural buddah of love; leave him offerings and kiss his ass so your next incarnation will be brought forth on a pure plane of existence, in which you'll acheive immediate enlightenment and thus everlasting joy. Sound familiar?)
MD
As much as I'm prayed for it, I can say it doesn't work.
reminds me of that classic Onion lead story:
"god answers young cancer victim's prayers. 'No', says god"
"god answers young cancer victim's prayers. 'No', says god"
Is there anything we can't learn from the Onion?narlus said:reminds me of that classic Onion lead story:
"god answers young cancer victim's prayers. 'No', says god"