The Power of Prayer?

[Shellhead]

From MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

"NEW YORK - In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

"Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.

"They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.

"The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the American Heart Journal."

Based on this one study, it appears that God is indifferent to our prayers. Even so, it seems peculiar that patients who knew that they were being prayed for had more complications. Maybe they were scared because the prayers made them more conscious of the dangers of the situation, and the stress caused by that fear made them experience more complications.

According to a poll in that article, only 55% thought that praying works, while 20% thought that it didn't work. What do you think, does praying work?

[Bloopinator]

I don't know if it truely works but I'm making the people I know pray for me if I have to get surgery or something.

[Chiasm]

Perhaps those being prayed for have a tendency to rely on prayer for healing rather than taking every medical step they could. A prayer person - "that wound won't get infected if I just bandage it and pray a lot." A non prayer person - "give me antibiotics."

[darkkeeperjr]

[QUOTE=Shellhead]From MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/


Based on this one study, it appears that God is indifferent to our prayers.


well he never appears indifferent to my prayers.

Another study would be to put 2 men in a lions pit. one prays and the other don't.

still gotten keep the faith under the knife. right?

[StoneGold]

Maybe we're just praying for the wrong god?


Oh Ba'al, how have we angered you?

[Paul McEnery]

Everyone involved in the experiment needs a smack in the head. But especially the scientists, because the design of the experiment was rubbish.

As any fule kno, the key to successful "faith-healing" is personal engagement with the person getting healed. Having some bunch of guys off in a monastery praying for random people they've got no genuine interest in -- well, surprise!

[Night]

Well, since it had an inverse placebo effect, it appears that God is not indifferent, only that He won't play the puppet for some circus stunt. That we already knew when Jesus faced Herod and many other times during Jesus's walk on Earth.

First of all, the people doing the study messed with the results: It seems they got the outcome they were looking for. They weren't earnestly seeking God, they just wanted to act as judge to God. God don't play that.

Second, they found 3 groups of Christians who were willing to pray for strangers, but only for specific strangers (actually they didn’t say whether or not they were told specifically not to). Being a Christian and brought with that to mind... I would be likely to pray for all of them or for the talent of the hospital staff or the hospital itself.... especially if they dumped 1200 names in my lap. They also didn't specify the size of any of the groups or whether any of the groups had any spiritual gifts in healing or prayer.

They you got the fact that they mentioned to the family and friends and even the patients that they were studying that they were doing this study. This also affects the results even thought they said that it was “unethical” to change their habits. Say they were studying the benefits of Vitamin C instead of prayer. Lets say they told family and friends that they were doing the study and the patient might get Vitamin C or Sugar Pill. I don’t know about any of your moms but unethical or no I’d end up taking 3000mg of Vitamin C a day if they told her that. I mean you’re talking about the life of someone these people love. Do you really think they care about some silly study over that?

[Forefinger]

Maybe we're just praying for the wrong god?


Oh Ba'al, how have we angered you?
"I now pray to you Al Bundy, please help me recover from my surgery so I can follow in your footsteps and sell women's shoes."

[Wesley Dodds]

As any fule kno, the key to successful "faith-healing" is personal engagement with the person getting healed. Having some bunch of guys off in a monastery praying for random people they've got no genuine interest in -- well, surprise!

OK, the problem with this is that you have to control for things like that in experiments. Peopl say prayer did it. Fine, test for prayer. You want to test for "personal engagement", fine, that's what you test for.

But there are a whole bunch of people who do believe that prayer works because God hears prayers and acts on them. That's what this experiment was testing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Prayer is nonsense, God doesn't exist. Of course studies confirm this... it isn't exactly news.

[HomerJay]

"Help me Jesus, help me Jewish guy, help me Tom Cruise!"

[HomerJay]

Prayer is nonsense, God doesn't exist. Of course studies confirm this... it isn't exactly news.
Lousy athiest. I hate you more than I hate gays or Muslims.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Lousy athiest. I hate you more than I hate gays or Muslims.


But what about gay Muslims?

[HomerJay]

But what about gay Muslims?
At least they believe in something. ;)

[Winslow]

This just in!

Scientists cannot prove the existence of God!

:eek:

[JeffreyWKramer]

This just in!

Scientists cannot prove the existence of God!

:eek:


The shocking thing is that people persist in believing in things for which there is zero evidence.

[HomerJay]

The shocking thing is that people persist in believing in things for which there is zero evidence.
Take it outside, you heathen:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116026

[Winslow]

The shocking thing is that people persist in believing in things for which there is zero evidence.

There's evidence - just not the scientific variety.

Materialism isn't the only philosophy "in the house."

[JeffreyWKramer]

There's evidence - just not the scientific variety.

Right. Evidence of the same level as that for the existence of elves and fairies. Definitely something from which to take great comfort and solace.

Materialism isn't the only philosophy "in the house."
Sadly, no. But it *is* the only one which is verifiably consistent with actual, observable reality.

[Cosmic Average]

There's evidence - just not the scientific variety.

You have evidence? That's independetly verifiable?

Materialism isn't the only philosophy "in the house."

You can show that the world is more than what can be observed and studied? And yet that's contradictory; if you could demonstrate that, then your evidence would fall into the category of concrete existence.

[Winslow]

I honestly don't want to get into a philosphical debate - I'm merely pointing out that the study is absurd.

Both materialists and idealists can agree on that (for different reasons).

[Cosmic Average]

I honestly don't want to get into a philosphical debate

Then why state you have evidence? Can you provide an example of this evidence?

I'm merely pointing out that the study is absurd.

How exactly was it absurd? The studied the effects of prayer by observing patients who had been prayed for and those who hadn't received any prayers, which were further divided into two categories.

The observations were then studied and they came to a conclusion based on the effect of prayer.

Both materialists and idealists can agree on that (for different reasons).

[west3man]

Didn't we just have a thread in which some folks from each side complained that they wouldn't have a problem with theists/atheists, if they weren't so doggone confrontational?

I don't know that this thread is a fair representational of each side, but it doesn't make my side look too good.

[Winslow]

Then why state you have evidence? Can you provide an example of this evidence?

My conversion.

*shrugs*

[Cosmic Average]

In what way is that evidence?

[west3man]

Then why state you have evidence? Can you provide an example of this evidence?My guess is that he stated it because he wanted to. Posters aren't obligated to provide reams of statistical data for ANYbody.

If Winslow were trying to convince you, me, or anyone else, I'm sure he'd have made a greater effort. Try not to make the common mistake of confusing a reluctance to get into a debate with an inability to effectively debate.

How exactly was it absurd?I'm curious about that one, myself. I don't buy Paul's explanation, but I wouldn't fault Winslow or anyone else for failing to be inspired to devote a bunch of energy to a debate with a fairly predictable conclusion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I honestly don't want to get into a philosphical debate - I'm merely pointing out that the study is absurd.

Both materialists and idealists can agree on that (for different reasons).


The article doesn't provide me with enough information to tell whether the study design is reasonably sound or not, so I'll withhold judgment there until I see something more detailed. I don't see anything absurd about studies which seek to test the claims made by religious proponents, though. I know the religious don't like such things, but tough titties, really - if people are gonna make extraordinary claims, they should be able to provide extraordinary evidence for them, or at very least provide a better explanation for lack of said evidence than the standard non-answers like "you can't measure God."

[JeffreyWKramer]

My conversion.

*shrugs*


One of my clients recently came to the realization that he was the reincarnation of Moses. He was formerly an athiest. Should we count his experience as evidence for the existence of God?

[Valmore]

In what way is that evidence?

It's evidence enough to him, which is really all that matters when it comes to personal faith. That's the funny thing about faith - it works on evidence only apparent to the person(s) believing in it. Winslow could explain why he believes all day, and the evidence would only be concrete to him. Might it possibly convert others? Maybe, but not entirely likely.

[JeffreyWKramer]

*razzinfrazzin double post*

[Winslow]

In what way is that evidence?

Our presuppositions to interpreting a subjective experience are so far apart there is no reconciliation.

Not to say exploring philosophical differences is futile – it is a great exercise in developing critical thinking, and sharpening the mind. It was not the reason I posted in the thread.

I posted in the thread to mock the experiment - see below.

How exactly was it absurd?

I'm curious about that one, myself. I don't buy Paul's explanation, but I wouldn't fault Winslow or anyone else for failing to be inspired to devote a bunch of energy to a debate with a fairly predictable conclusion.

I was mocking the experiment. My point is that the experiment is absurd.

Materialist: God is a concept that cannot be proven, therefore he does not exist. Why don’t we develop an experiment that tries to measure and quantify this? Absurd.

Idealist: God’s existence cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. Why don’t we develop and experiment that proves this? Absurd.

One of my clients recently came to the realization that he was the reincarnation of Moses. He was formerly an athiest. Should we count his experience as evidence for the existence of God?

If his experience was consistent with people from all ages and all countries for the past 2,000 years . . . than maybe (I said maybe) :D

[Winslow]

double post

[JeffreyWKramer]

Didn't we just have a thread in which some folks from each side complained that they wouldn't have a problem with theists/atheists, if they weren't so doggone confrontational?

I don't know that this thread is a fair representational of each side, but it doesn't make my side look too good.


Me, I believe it is a good thing to confront unreason, superstition and nonsense with logic, facts and reality. If that makes me so doggone confrontational, so be it.

[west3man]

Me, I believe it is a good thing to confront unreason, superstition and nonsense with logic, facts and reality. If that makes me so doggone confrontational, so be it.
Oh no. THAT's not what makes you doggone confrontational.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I was mocking the experiment. My point is that the experiment is absurd.

Materialist: God is a concept that cannot be proven, therefore he does not exist. Why don’t we develop an experiment that tries to measure and quantify this? Absurd.

Except this study wasn't designed or intended to test the existence of God. It was designed to test specific claims often made by the religious - that prayer has the power to heal. It's bad enough for one to argue for an intangible, immaterial, imperceptible God, but should we also believe that we can't tell whether or not healing has occurred?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Oh no. THAT's not what makes you doggone confrontational.


Verboten that such responses are, the only response I can make to that is LOL!

[Winslow]

Except this study wasn't designed or intended to test the existence of God. It was designed to test specific claims often made by the religious - that prayer has the power to heal. It's bad enough for one to argue for an intangible, immaterial, imperceptible God, but should we also believe that we can't tell whether or not healing has occurred?

O.K.

I don't believe that prayer has the ability to heal. I believe that God does. A huge distinction.

The experiment is intended to measure a response to a request. There are both objective and subjective reasons to deny or agree to a request. It's not measureable data - therefore it is absurd.

[JeffreyWKramer]

O.K.

I don't believe that prayer has the ability to heal. I believe that God does. A huge distinction.

The experiment is intended to measure a response to a request. There are both objective and subjective reasons to deny or agree to a request. It's not measureable data - therefore it is absurd.


But while the study can't tell why a request was denied or agreed to, it can tell us whether or not something observable happened. And in this case, nothing observable happened. That is data. At very least, it provides us with data documenting God failing to respond to prayer. Given the existence of such data, those who want to keep claiming God does respond to prayer - or that prayer does have power, which some do claim - had better be able to put up some data to support their claim.

Time for those making such claims to put up or shut up.

[Winslow]

But while the study can't tell why a request was denied or agreed to, it can tell us whether or not something observable happened. And in this case, nothing observable happened. That is data. At very least, it provides us with data documenting God failing to respond to prayer. Given the existence of such data, those who want to keep claiming God does respond to prayer - or that prayer does have power, which some do claim - had better be able to put up some data to support their claim.

Time for those making such claims to put up or shut up.

It's impossible to prove scientifically.

I mentioned last week, that a friend of mine had a documented heart blockage.

He was admitted for surgery. In preparing for surgery, its was discovered that the blockage had cleared, with no medical explanation.

We had prayed for him between the two events.

Is that scientific evidence? No.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's impossible to prove scientifically.
Nonsense.

I mentioned last week, that a friend of mine had a documented heart blockage.

He was admitted for surgery. In preparing for surgery, its was discovered that the blockage had cleared, with no medical explanation.

We had prayed for him between the two events.

Is that scientific evidence? No.

But if someone could demonstrate that this happens any more commonly in people who are prayed for than in people who are not prayed for, that would be scientific evidence. In other words, if rather than proclaiming "It happened in this one case, it's a miracle", someone actually studied a large number of cases and used a control group and such... if then they found that yes, the prayed-for people had statistically significant, demonstrably better outcomes, then you'd have scientific evidence that prayer had an effect.

This, by the way, is the same way we prove that medicines or psychotherapies or surgical procedures work - by demonstrating an effect above and beyond what occurs in the absence of treatment (or compared to another treatment, if you're testing for supremacy of one form of treatment over another).

As is, you have no such evidence. And as such, there's no reason people should believe or take seriously such outlandish claims. If prayer really works, than the effects should be visible, and they should show up if one compares data of prayed-for folk to those not prayed-for. While this is science, it isn't exactly rocket science - it's the most basic threshold of proof.

Unfortunately for your argument, prayer has thus far failed to reach that threshold.

[Cosmic Average]

Our presuppositions to interpreting a subjective experience are so far apart there is no reconciliation.

Evidence is not subjective, but rather objective. Otherwise it's a mere claim, with nothing to support it.

Not to say exploring philosophical differences is futile – it is a great exercise in developing critical thinking, and sharpening the mind. It was not the reason I posted in the thread.

I don't believe we're discussing philosophy. No, we're discussing your statement of possessing evidence.

I posted in the thread to mock the experiment - see below.

And you failed to do so in any meaningful way.

I was mocking the experiment. My point is that the experiment is absurd.

So, the experiment is absurd because it's absurd?

Materialist:

It seems to me that you're attempting to promote a view of relativism. If you dislike the fact that you're unable to furnish evidence, since the burden of proof is on you, you attempt to define requiring proof as a 'philosophy', one that's equally valid to your own, which requires no evidence backing up one's claim.

God is a concept that cannot be proven, therefore he does not exist. Why don’t we develop an experiment that tries to measure and quantify this? Absurd.

As Kramer stated, the experiment was studying the effects of prayer.

Also, since gods have no actual evidence to support their existence, the claim that they exist must be dismissed.

Idealist: God’s existence cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. Why don’t we develop and experiment that proves this? Absurd.

A statement where proof is not needed, where study is not wanted, but is actively discouraged.

If his experience was consistent with people from all ages and all countries for the past 2,000 years . . . than maybe (I said maybe) :D

What exactly does that have to with anything? Stage fright is consistent and yet is irrational.

[Doug Strange]

Is there anything more boring than an angry athiest?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Is there anything more boring than an angry athiest?

Your posts, generally.

[Naldo]

I've just never understood the need to anthropomorphize the deity. How/why does a deity get angry? offended? jealous?

Seems to me God was created in mans image rather than the other way around.

How else to explain the very human range of emotions that have been ascribed to God?

[Doug Strange]

Your posts, generally.Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.

[Cosmic Average]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?

And how am I 'railing against believers'? Winslow stated he had proof. I merely asked him to supply it.

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.

Personally, I am. :D

[JeffreyWKramer]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?
Because we care.

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.
The less superstitious nonsense thinking there is in the world, the more it will be enjoyable for everyone.

That said, I do a pretty good job of enjoying my time.

[Doug Strange]

And how am I 'railing against believers'? Winslow stated he had proof. I merely asked him to supply it.

Personally, I am. :DDon't get cute. You're fucking with Winslow just to fuck with him. And it's tiresome.

In your head, he hasn't got any proof. What are you expecting here? You want him to break down in tears? Realize how wrong he's been all these years? Thank you for lifting his blinders?

Quit fooling yourself into thinking you're engaging in some type of meaningful discussion. You're needling someone, and that's all.

[Doug Strange]

The less superstitious nonsense thinking there is in the world, the more it will be enjoyable for everyone.Hogwash. Superstitious nonsense is fun as hell.

That said, I do a pretty good job of enjoying my time.Mmmm, yes. It's tons of fun reminding people God doesn't exist. On and on. Ad nauseum.

[Valmore]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?

Your time on this planet is very limited. Try to enjoy it.

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing. When you die, if you're wrong, all you did was believe in something while you lived, and you're not really penalized. However, if a person who doesn't believe is wrong, when that person dies, they're pretty much screwed.

Logically, it makes more sense to hedge your bet by believing in a higher power. Why take the chance on being completely screwed in the afterlife because you didn't want to believe in a higher being when you were alive?

(Yes, that's an extremely shallow reason for believing and no, it is NOT my reason for believing. I'm just making a logical point.)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hogwash. Superstitious nonsense is fun as hell.

It would be, if people didn't actually believe in it. That leads to many bad things, starting with ignorance and leading all the way through stuff like suicide bombers. Fantasy fiction is great. Fantasy used as a basis for social policy or interacting with others is a really bad thing.

Mmmm, yes. It's tons of fun reminding people God doesn't exist. On and on. Ad nauseum.

Oh, I don't do that for fun. That comes more from a sense of duty to he community.

But hey, I'll go on doing my thing, and if you being pissy is your thing, by all means go for it. I'll just go on ignoring you like I generally do.

[Cosmic Average]

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing.

Ah, yes, but what about the time wasted with the belief? How many hours are spent in the church or spent prostrating, or hell, proselytizing?

What of the science lost with the belief? If one believes in a god, then they're not very likely to puzzle out the mysteries of the universe, e.g., how it came about.

What if one believes that they must enforce their god's will? Such as preventing two consenting adults from marrying or forcing a woman to carry her rapist's fetus to term?

[JeffreyWKramer]

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing.

No, not true at all. When belief translates to action, it all too often results in real harm. Christian Scientists who let kids die from treatable diseases. Anti-gay amendments. People not learning to tell science from nonsense, and society losing out on potential scientists - and thus progress - as a result.

Now, it's true that scientific advances have also resulted in some less-than-wonderful things. Gunpowder and atomic weapons are good examples. But it also brings us things like vaccines and computers and electricity. It keeps paying us dividends. Perhaps at one point religion was necessary, and really served some purpose other than social control, but it's time now to move past superstition and nonsense.

[HomerJay]

Granted I'm pretty dull, but nothing beats dudes like you and Cos here, railing against believers because...why, again?
I already posted the link, but check out this thread for more believers-are-silly-idiots/atheists-are-intellectually-superior goodness: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116026

[Valmore]

No, not true at all. When belief translates to action, it all too often results in real harm. Christian Scientists who let kids die from treatable diseases. Anti-gay amendments. People not learning to tell science from nonsense, and society losing out on potential scientists - and thus progress - as a result.

And then you have belief from the other side leading to action that they don't agree with such as questionable ethics in cloning and other things in the name of "scientific progress." Oh, and transmutable science that serves an agendas purpose - hey, we discovered a gene that makes people do this - let's take away personal accountability.

See, it's funny - who says what YOU believe is correct?

[JeffreyWKramer]

See, it's funny - who says what YOU believe is correct?

Well, I do have scientific evidence - you know, actual proof of something testable and demonstrable - on my side. Y'know... something completely lacking in the case of religion. Aside from that inconvenient fact, you almost have a real argument.

Well, okay. Not really. But I'm trying to be nice.

I'm not saying bad things don't also come out of science sometimes - heck, in the post you responded to, I stated quite the opposite - but that reflects human action, not the inherent nature of science. In contrast, real-world religions do include statements such as "homosexuality is sin" and "suffer not a witch" and such things.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I already posted the link, but check out this thread for more believers-are-silly-idiots/atheists-are-intellectually-superior goodness: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116026

Hey, there can never be too much of that!!!

[HomerJay]

...if you being pissy is your thing...
Calling someone's beliefs (especially religious) "nonsense" over and over tends to bring out pissiness in people.

[Hoss]

This Sunday, the teacher of the Bible fellowship class that I was visiting did a lecture that was about the "Case for God." I really have no interest in getting into that debate here. But I was saddened by how condescending and insulting he was towards unbelievers. A trait that I see too much in lay believers and in Church leadership alike. He just assumed that folks who did not believe in Christ as Savior were either fundamentally flawed in their thinking or did not have all the facts.

I'm sorry to say that I'm seeing the same thing from some of the atheist in this thread. I really wish more folks on both sides of the debate could be more modest and more capable of saying "I don't know." I do take solace that some of the greatest scientific minds that have existed were a lot more humble about their opinions on God and believers than have been expressed here.

As far as proof, well, the scientific community has a very specific definition of proof. And really, short of a doctor proclaiming Christ on the cross dead then proclaiming fully resurrected or actually being present as Jesus performed miracles, some folks will never believe. Even then, they’d look for a way to debunk Him.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Calling someone's beliefs (especially religious) "nonsense" over and over tends to bring out pissiness in people.

I'm gonna pull a West here...

My Websters says "Nonsense...n. Words, actions, etc. that are absurd or meaningless."

It also says "Absurd... adj. So unreasonable as to be ridiculous."

People believing in supernatural beings and events for which there is a complete lack of evidence. Hm...

Sounds right to me. And that perhaps those offended might do well to either grow some thicker skin, or rethink their beliefs.

[Valmore]

Well, I do have scientific evidence - you know, actual proof of something testable and demonstrable - on my side. Y'know... something completely lacking in the case of religion. Aside from that inconvenient fact, you almost have a real argument.

Well, okay. Not really. But I'm trying to be nice.

I'm not saying bad things don't also come out of science sometimes - heck, in the post you responded to, I stated quite the opposite - but that reflects human action, not the inherent nature of science. In contrast, real-world religions do include statements such as "homosexuality is sin" and "suffer not a witch" and such things.

Can you prove homosexuality ISN'T a sin? See, funny thing, there's no science for that. You simply believe it isn't. Others believe it is. Can you prove it anymore than I can? No. When you speak of social mores, there's no real science to it, just a system of beliefs from different sides of the coin. You have a side that thinks homosexuality is hunky-dory. You have a side that thinks it's the spawn of Satan. Then you have a bunch of people in the middle who don't really like to think about it.

[Doug Strange]

It would be, if people didn't actually believe in it. That leads to many bad things, starting with ignorance and leading all the way through stuff like suicide bombers. Fantasy fiction is great. Fantasy used as a basis for social policy or interacting with others is a really bad thing.Fantasy and superstition (and religion) do not by themselves lead to suicide bombers. Hatred and alienation are the main ingredients there. Hatred and alienation caused much of the time by some jackass in their face screaming about how their god doesn't exist.
But hey, I'll go on doing my thing, and if you being pissy is your thing, by all means go for it. I'll just go on ignoring you like I generally do.I'm pissy, Jeffrey, with bullies and malcontents.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Can you prove homosexuality ISN'T a sin?

Since "sin" is defined as the violation of a religious proscription, its a meaningless word in real-world terms. In reality, it exists only to the extent fairies and unicorns exist - as a concept.

I prefer to go with the concept of objective harm. That's something which can be directly observed or easily inferred from observed fact. Homosexuality isn't objectively harmful, or at least no more or less so than heterosexuality.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Fantasy and superstition (and religion) do not by themselves lead to suicide bombers. Hatred and alienation are the main ingredients there. Hatred and alienation caused much of the time by some jackass in their face screaming about how their god doesn't exist.

Seems suicide bombing is a very different phenomenon in whatever dimension you come from. In mine, people commit suicide bombings because they belong to a branch of their religion that says they get to go to heaven and screw a bunch of virgin girls if they kill someone their religion says is a bad person.

Beyond that, there isn't a lot of anyone telling folks Allah doesn't exist in the places from where suicide bombers tend to come... largely because they kill people who say that in those countries.

I'm pissy, Jeffrey, with bullies and malcontents.

So go find some of them. I'm busy here.

[JeffreyWKramer]

...some of the greatest scientific minds that have existed were a lot more humble about their opinions on God and believers than have been expressed here.

Progress is a good thing.

[Cosmic Average]

Fantasy and superstition (and religion) do not by themselves lead to suicide bombers.

Except, you know, when the religion states that a believer who dies fighting infidels will receive seventy-two virgins in heaven.

Hatred and alienation are the main ingredients there.

Yes, religion does foster hatred and alienation. I mean, how do you think a closeted gay teen feels when his parents are True Believers?

Hatred and alienation caused much of the time by some jackass in their face screaming about how their god doesn't exist.

As opposed to passing laws restricting a person's rights just because they happen to love the wrong person?

I'm pissy, Jeffrey, with bullies and malcontents.

[Ed Cunard]

The awesome thing about atheism is that it's so not a unified thing that I don't feel guilty for other atheists acting like gits.

I meant to mention this in the other thread, but I'll do it here--it really is starting to seem (at least, to me) that some atheists are really codified in their atheism, and that strikes me as a little off. Some Christians say "I need no proof, because I know there is a God who loves me," and some atheists say "I need no proof, because I know there is no god." Both seem to have some kind of faith involved... Is there a useful distinction between someone who believes there is no god, and a person that doesn't believe in god (or, well, anything)? Like, should I start calling myself... um... an adevotist?

I don't to be an existentialist, because I don't look good in berets.

[HomerJay]

I meant to mention this in the other thread, but I'll do it here--it really is starting to seem (at least, to me) that some atheists are really codified in their atheism, and that strikes me as a little off. Some Christians say "I need no proof, because I know there is a God who loves me," and some atheists say "I need no proof, because I know there is no god." Both seem to have some kind of faith involved... Is there a useful distinction between someone who believes there is no god, and a person that doesn't believe in god (or, well, anything)? Like, should I start calling myself... um... an adevotist?
Bravo, Ed. This is the level-headedness that compelled me to vote you for Citizen of the Month.

[Doug Strange]

What of the science lost with the belief? If one believes in a god, then they're not very likely to puzzle out the mysteries of the universe, e.g., how it came about.This is really, really off-base. At least in my case. What kind of scientist rules out possibilities without a reason? Just because you don't have a test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What if one believes that they must enforce their god's will? Such as preventing two consenting adults from marrying or forcing a woman to carry her rapist's fetus to term?Well, again, I don't believe that acts like these are due to religion. Rather the opposite. The indoctrination of hate.

[Grazzt]

You know what's funny - in believing, you tend to harm nothing. When you die, if you're wrong, all you did was believe in something while you lived, and you're not really penalized. However, if a person who doesn't believe is wrong, when that person dies, they're pretty much screwed.

That doesn't make any sense. If a person who believes in a religion is wrong, there are two outcomes:

1) There is no actual deity out there. Nothing bad happens.

2) There is an actual deity out there, and now he doesn't want you by him/her/it because what you were praying to wasn't him/her/it. At best you're probably going to be a second class citizen in that deity's afterlife. At worst, your going to that deity's hell.

[Ed Cunard]

Bravo, Ed. This is the level-headedness that compelled me to vote you for Citizen of the Month.

Yeah, but don't bowdlerize the snide opening line. I may have ended up somewhat level, but that was only after rolling down a hill.

[Winslow]

And I concede my testimony is not "evidence" as typically defined - however testimony is given weight in a court of law (is not necessarily considered proof).

However, and attempting to get back on topic: God healing someone in response to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

So I still contend the experiment is absurd. :D

[Grazzt]

However, God healing someone in repsonse to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

What makes it contrary to the laws of nature if someone heals themselves in a way that is not entirely unprecedented? And really, there aren't that many laws of nature as opposed to a series of more or less reliable guidelines.

[HomerJay]

Yeah, but don't bowdlerize the snide opening line. I may have ended up somewhat level, but that was only after rolling down a hill.
Well, what I meant was that you actually have the audacity to respectfully disagree with someone without resorting to name-calling or ridiculing their beliefs. This is something in short supply around here lately, especially in this thread.

[west3man]

I'm gonna pull a West here...
Only one tug? I want my money back.

[Cosmic Average]

And I concede my testimony is not "evidence" as typically defined -

That's good. Thanks. :)

however testimony is given weight in a court of law (is not necessarily considered proof).

However, and attempting to get back on topic: God healing someone in response to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

I'm not certain I follow. If it happened, then it can be observed. If it can be observed then it can be quantified and measured.

So I still contend the experiment is absurd. :D

[west3man]

Verboten that such responses are, the only response I can make to that is LOL!Laugh as loudly or as heartily as you like.
You're using a hammer when a tap on the shoulder would do just fine.

If you think there's something hypocritical about that coming from me, fine. I, of course, disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong.

[foswell]

I never understood praying for someone is ill or dying.Surely god created the circumstances of the persons suffering in the first place

[Winslow]

I'm not certain I follow. If it happened, then it can be observed.

True. However, from a purely scientific viewpoint, there are some things that occur that are not explained, or repeatable.

If it can be observed then it can be quantified and measured.

Only if it can be repeated and a hypothesis developed to predict future results.

Prayer cannot be measured using the scientific method.

God may choose to heal this time, and choose not to the next.

Or . . .He doesn't exist, and the phenomena is random.

[Doug Strange]

Seems suicide bombing is a very different phenomenon in whatever dimension you come from. In mine, people commit suicide bombings because they belong to a branch of their religion that says they get to go to heaven and screw a bunch of virgin girls if they kill someone their religion says is a bad person. First, I have to apologize. The last two posts of mine were not worded very carefully. I'm at work and not paying full attention. But bugger the excuses, I shouldn't have posted the words I did. That last one especially. You guys are probably having a field day with that one as I type.

I don't actually mean to say that there aren't harmful beliefs and bad religion. There's plenty of ignorance in the world. Of course, duh. But the people spewing that type of bullshit...why do you think it comes so easy for them? Is that strictly because religion exists? Or is it due to other factors, maybe?

Why does the athiest message here need to be anti-god? For what reason? Why not anti-blowing shit up/denying folks rights/being all-around cunts? That stuff doesn't happen because of a belief in God. If it did, we'd have literally several billion more people on the planet pulling those kinds of stunts.

[Doug Strange]

Yeah, but don't bowdlerize the snide opening line. I may have ended up somewhat level, but that was only after rolling down a hill.I do the same thing, usually. Starting off badly, I mean. But from there I get worse and worse.

[HomerJay]

Why not anti-blowing shit up/denying folks rights/being all-around cunts?
Because then that would be a morality issue which would leave no room for some athiests' intellectual superiority complexes or give them the opportunity to ridicule those who disagree.

[JeffreyWKramer]

and some atheists say "I need no proof, because I know there is no god." Both seem to have some kind of faith involved...

And then there are those athiests who say "I believe there is no God because the evidence for God is completely nonexistent, and I prefer evidence and reason to blind faith."

[JeffreyWKramer]

What kind of scientist rules out possibilities without a reason? Just because you don't have a test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Lack of evidence that something exists is a fairly good reason to suspect it does not exist. When the things someone believes turn out to be contrary to observable reality, that's a good reason to move from doubting something to disbelieving that something.

Well, again, I don't believe that acts like these are due to religion. Rather the opposite. The indoctrination of hate.

Religion isn't the only source of hate, but it is all too often one source. When religion teaches that people who believe differently are wrong, and often evil heretics - and most religions do teach this, in one form or another - that goes a long way toward reinforcing the hatred of those outside the group.

[JeffreyWKramer]

However, and attempting to get back on topic: God healing someone in response to prayer IS a miracle. A miracle (by definition) is something that occurs contrary to science and laws of nature - hence it cannot be measured or quantified, or reproduced.

So I still contend the experiment is absurd. :D

Again, nonsense. If something occurs, it or its effects can be observed. As such, it can be measured, and potentially quantified. We may not be able to tell what causes the occurrence, but we should at least be able to tell that something has occurred.

The problem is, there don't appear to be any miracles which stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny. Some studies find no evidince anything is occurring at all. Others I've cited before, which have found some evidence that something occurs, haven't shown that the "something" is anything specific to prayer or to either religion in general, or any specific belief system. Either way, the evidence for the power of prayer is just plain not there.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Laugh as loudly or as heartily as you like.
You're using a hammer when a tap on the shoulder would do just fine.

If you think there's something hypocritical about that coming from me, fine. I, of course, disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical there. However, I don't think the soft tap on the shoulder does the job - or, rather, as with many things, I think the combo of both tap and hammer gets you farther than just the carrot or just the stick. The problem is, in regard to illogic and unreasoning faith, those speaking out at all have all too often been just doing the tap on the shoulder. Time for the hammer, too. Time to just lay things out as they are. Some beliefs are simply illogical and irrational, and are not backed up by any sort of evidence - and indeed, evidence that does exist tends to refute some beliefs. By definition, such beliefs are nonsense.

I don't think candy coating this serves any purpose.

[west3man]

Lack of evidence that something exists is a fairly good reason to suspect it does not exist.You're not just saying you suspect it does not exist, though.
You say it DEFINITELY does not exist and that contrary thoughts or suggestions are nonsense.

The former is what I, and apparently Ed, think is somewhat similar to faith, but it's mostly with the latter that I find fault.

[Winslow]

Either way, the evidence for the power of prayer is just plain not there.

Scientific evidence that supports a hypothesis? Yes. I agree. See my post # 79. The last sentence you probably agree with.

We're looking at the same coin from two different sides.

[west3man]

I don't think there's anything hypocritical there. However, I don't think the soft tap on the shoulder does the job - or, rather, as with many things, I think the combo of both tap and hammer gets you farther than just the carrot or just the stick. The problem is, in regard to illogic and unreasoning faith, those speaking out at all have all too often been just doing the tap on the shoulder. Time for the hammer, too. Time to just lay things out as they are. Some beliefs are simply illogical and irrational, and are not backed up by any sort of evidence - and indeed, evidence that does exist tends to refute some beliefs. By definition, such beliefs are nonsense.

I don't think candy coating this serves any purpose.
The question, then, is what is "the job?" What's your goal of purpose?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't actually mean to say that there aren't harmful beliefs and bad religion. There's plenty of ignorance in the world. Of course, duh. But the people spewing that type of bullshit...why do you think it comes so easy for them? Is that strictly because religion exists? Or is it due to other factors, maybe?

There are other factors involved, too. But make no mistake, religion is part of the problem, and in some ways can facilitate those other factors, toward bad results.

Why does the athiest message here need to be anti-god?

I can't speak for athiests in general, but for me personally, I believe it is time for people, and for our cultures, to put aside nonsensible, supernatural beliefs. There are real problems which need to be tackled with real solutions - not with prayer or with the idea that the One True Faith will make things work out - and we have the tools to potentially tackle those problems if people would stop wasting their time with nonsense.

Why not <speak out against - JWK edit> anti-blowing shit up/denying folks rights/being all-around cunts? .
I do speak out against those folk too. I tend to speak out more against religion in general, though, because it's all part of the same problem. When religion causes people to mistake science for nonsense, and convinces them to send money to con men and snake oil salesemen, that does harm. This harm may may not be as dramatic as a bunch of fanatics flying an airplane into a building, but is harm nonetheless.

EDIT: Then there's the fact that at least here, where I'm typing this, I don't see a whole lot of pro-suicide-bombing sentiment, but there are a lot of people spouting irrationality as truth.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You're not just saying you suspect it does not exist, though.
You say it DEFINITELY does not exist and that contrary thoughts or suggestions are nonsense.

The former is what I, and apparently Ed, think is somewhat similar to faith, but it's mostly with the latter that I find fault.

Yes, I do. There is no evidence for the underlying hypotheses of religion, and the evidence we have about how the world actually does function suggests that it functions by principles completely different than what religion tells us - i.e., quantifiable, naturalistic processes absent a creator, intelligent design, etc.

To me, that combo is good enough reason to state with certainty - at least as much certainty as we can state anything, anyhow - that religion is hooey. Is it theoretically possible I'm wrong here? Sure, I admit that. But anything is theoretically possible. It's also theoretically possible that the Greek myths are true. In practical terms, though, not all things are true, and I'll bet that the truth is the side that has actual evidence. That makes a lot more sense than believing that the truth is the side for which there is no evidence.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Scientific evidence that supports a hypothesis? Yes. I agree. See my post # 79. The last sentence you probably agree with.

We're looking at the same coin from two different sides.


The difference is, we have different views of what those two sides are. You think they are "science" and "God". I see no evidence for the "God" side, and regard the lack of evidence for that side - and all the evidence to the contrary - as reason to conclude the coin's two sides are "reality" and "non-reality."

And I do agree with your last sentence, yes. Further, I see no evidence which would support any other conclusion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The question, then, is what is "the job?" What's your goal of purpose?

Attack illogic and superstition and nonsense. Attack it relentlessly. Bring it down and finish it off.

Religion is not the only type of illogical nonsense in the world, but it is the biggest and strongest, and the one which supports most of the rest. Read Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD for an explanation of this concept.

Take religion down, the rest follows.

Am I gonna do that myself? Of course not. But if enough people do their part, we've rid society of one negative influence, which frees up resources for tackling the other problems.

[west3man]

Yes, I do. There is no evidence for the underlying hypotheses of religion, and the evidence we have about how the world actually does function suggests that it functions by principles completely different than what religion tells us - i.e., quantifiable, naturalistic processes absent a creator, intelligent design, etc.

To me, that combo is good enough reason to state with certainty - at least as much certainty as we can state anything, anyhow - that religion is hooey. Is it theoretically possible I'm wrong here? Sure, I admit that. But anything is theoretically possible. It's also theoretically possible that the Greek myths are true. In practical terms, though, not all things are true, and I'll bet that the truth is the side that has actual evidence. That makes a lot more sense than believing that the truth is the side for which there is no evidence.A big chunk of the above is firmly rooted in the idea that God and those quantifiable, naturalistic processes are mutually exclusive.

You place an incredible amount of value in that which we do know or that which we suspect, but place little to no value on that which we do not know. Considering how substantial the latter is, the only reason to disregard it would be faith in the former.

[Winslow]

The difference is, we have different views of what those two sides are. You think they are "science" and "God". I see no evidence for the "God" side, and regard the lack of evidence for that side - and all the evidence to the contrary - as reason to conclude the coin's two sides are "reality" and "non-reality."

The coin is the scientific method.

You look at prayer through the scientific method and conclude it has no basis in reality (This is a rational response - don't misunderstand me - I'm not attacking the scientific method or materialism).

I look at prayer through the scientific method and say the method is inadequate to measure something that exists outside of reality (an appeal to the will of God).

We come to the same conclusion, but through a different worldview lens.

[west3man]

Attack illogic and superstition and nonsense. Attack it relentlessly. Bring it down and finish it off.

Religion is not the only type of illogical nonsense in the world, but it is the biggest and strongest, and the one which supports most of the rest. Read Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD for an explanation of this concept.

Take religion down, the rest follows.

Am I gonna do that myself? Of course not. But if enough people do their part, we've rid society of one negative influence, which frees up resources for tackling the other problems.So you believe religion does more harm than it does good?

[JeffreyWKramer]

A big chunk of the above is firmly rooted in the idea that God and those quantifiable, naturalistic processes are mutually exclusive.

In any meaningful sense, they are mutually exclusive. There is a supernatural, or there is only the natural. Religion tells us that things occur which have no possible naturalistic explanation, events and beings which function in ways not possible within the rules we recognize as possible in the natural world. The problem with religion is, we heve no evidence at all suggesting there are things that actually exist that do not function by the same naturalistic principles which govern everything else.

You place an incredible amount of value in that which we do know or that which we suspect, but place little to no value on that which we do not know. Considering how substantial the latter is, the only reason to disregard it would be faith in the former.

I know that there are tons of things we don't know. But I don't see any evidence that religion offers any real answers, or anything real that cannot be grasped without religion. Further, we have no evidence that the things we don't know are either unknowable or something qualitatively different than those things we do know - all of which are naturalistic, quantifiable things.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So you believe religion does more harm than it does good?

At this point in time, absolutely. At some earlier points in the development of our species, possibly not.

I also believe that good which does result from religion can happen just as effectively without religion.

[darkkeeperjr]

This just in!

Scientists cannot prove the existence of God!

:eek:


More breaking news: Scientists is still trying to figure out how a fish became a man.

More "where the hell is that link?" at 11:00

[west3man]

In any meaningful sense, they are mutually exclusive. There is a supernatural, or there is only the natural. Religion tells us that things occur which have no possible naturalistic explanation, events and beings which function in ways not possible within the rules we recognize as possible in the natural world. The problem with religion is, we heve no evidence at all suggesting there are things that actually exist that do not function by the same naturalistic principles which govern everything else.Saying that these things "have no possible naturalistic explanation" is very assumptive.

Terms like "supernatural" and "magic" are pretty relative. I'm sure a lot of what we do now would seem magical to some of our ancestors. The very suggestion that such things were possible would be viewed and confidently labeled as nonsense.

That doesn't make it true.

I know that there are tons of things we don't know. But I don't see any evidence that religion offers any real answers, or anything real that cannot be grasped without religion. Further, we have no evidence that the things we don't know are either unknowable or something qualitatively different than those things we do know - all of which are naturalistic, quantifiable things.Like opinions, not all evidence is of equal value. To say something is unknowable is to make your opponents' case for them.

[JeffreyWKramer]

We come to the same conclusion, but through a different worldview lens.


I don't think so. You assume, or conclude, there is a "something else" besides reality, which is real. I believe that assumption, or conclusion, to be very much mistaken.

The sides of the coin, as I see them, are "reality" and "fiction." And, as I've said many times before, I see no problem with fiction, and in fact believe that fiction has much to offer, in terms of teaching us things, in terms of escapism, etc. However, fiction is a poor ground upon which to base social policy, or our interactions with other people.

Now, as much as I understand some of Paul's beliefs, he believes fiction is real to some extent - or that it is a metareality, I guess. That's an interesting concept upon which to base works of fiction - THE INVISIBLES, THE MATRIX, etc... but again, I don't see any evidence it is so, and when I try to read works which seriously suggest this hypothesis... well, frankly they tend to make my head hurt. A lot of it I plain don't follow, and that I am able to follow looks to me like a chain of illogic, wiggle words and metaphor mistaken for actuality.

The real world - physics, astronomy, the Grand Canyon, deep sea fishes, babies, sex, acts of human kindness - that's amazing enough for me, thanks. I don't have to believe there is something beyond the real to believe things are amazing and meaningful.

[Hoss]

It really does amaze me how supposed intellectuals use the rash and totalitarian actions of some folks to damn all religious folks. Should we judge atheism from the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot? If I wanted to put on blinders and use logic as a weapon instead of a tool, I could argue that the greatest atrocities committed in the history of man were committed in the last century by atheist. But then someone would bring up the Catholic Church's record during times like Inquisition and round and round we would go.

I notice the while the religious right is (rightfully) lambasted no one ever acknowledges that faith was what drove and sustained Dr. King and Gandhi. It seems that in the world of some unbelievers these men were irrational, delusional folks who somehow managed to vastly improve the state of man and change the course of nations and empires despite their ridiculous reliance on faith.

Trust me, I understand the resentment that many folks feel towards the oppressive tendencies that many supposed people of faith exhibit. In some ways, I think being a Christian and a Progressive is the hardest sets of beliefs to have right now in America. There really is no safe port. But it is down right ignorant to view intolerance as being a problem that stems from believing in a higher power and not from basic flaws in human nature.

[west3man]

At this point in time, absolutely. At some earlier points in the development of our species, possibly not. So, it could at some later points in the development in our species as well, or not.

But we don't know.

I also believe that good which does result from religion can happen just as effectively without religion.There's big difference between what "can" and what "will" happen.

I have little doubt that you see religion as a crutch. Your approach is the equivalent of walking up to a little old lady in a cast and knocking her walker, crutches, or wheelchair from beneath her... just because you *think* she can walk without them.

[Solaris]

From MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

"NEW YORK - In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

"Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.

"They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.

"The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the American Heart Journal."

Based on this one study, it appears that God is indifferent to our prayers. Even so, it seems peculiar that patients who knew that they were being prayed for had more complications. Maybe they were scared because the prayers made them more conscious of the dangers of the situation, and the stress caused by that fear made them experience more complications.

According to a poll in that article, only 55% thought that praying works, while 20% thought that it didn't work. What do you think, does praying work?


I think the part I bolded probably does play a part---they associate the certainty that people are praying for them with the idea that so many things can go wrong... and it increases stress and fear. It's also possible that some experience anxiety over the possiblity that they may "fail those who are praying for me" by not recovering well.

I think it's likely associated with their own views of being asked to pray for someone: when it's asked, it's usually for something serious, something life-threatening, or loss by death. Whether they realize it or not, these people may be projecting themselves into the "negative conception" of severe risk, etc., that they see in others, when they are asked to *pray* for others.

It may also give them the idea that "procedures etc. are problematic, and that the only true way to healing is if God intervenes"... a sort of "doubt in the doctors and human ability." I can see how that would stress some people: it's eroding their faith that the procedure will work right, and also puts them in the stance of "am I good enough for God to help?" in their minds, causing fear and anxiety on two fronts. They're already going through something that's a "brush with death;" doubting their doctors ability, and questioning their own worth to God, will just make more stress.

Bottom line, I think it has to do with how these people perceived such prayers in the first place.

If they were able to see it in the way Madeline L'Engle described it (via a character) once, they might feel better about it:

[paraphrasing]"When I pray for someone, it is an act of Love: I am picking them up and placing them in God's Hand, with love." The idea is that of prayer expressing love for the person, and asking God to make them aware that God loves them, too, and that however things turn out, All Will Be Well, because of that love. Anything that is loved is never forgotten, never lost, never vanished. Many waters cannot quench love.

So basically, prayer for someone is a way of saying "I love you, and God loves you, and All will be well, because of that, and we (God and I) are with you in heart and in spirit... with you, whatever trials you face." It's a strengthening thing, knowing that you are not going through something alone, and are Never Alone.

If more people saw "being prayed for in time of crisis" in that fashion (as somthing comforting and sustaining, rather than a cause for doubt and fear)... the results of the survey might be very very different.


As to the question "does prayer work", of course it does. No love expressed is ever lost or wasted, and that's what a prayer is: love.

Does it always get the results we hope for, ask for, long for? No. Praying for someone to survive surgery doesn't mean they automatically will. There are many factors that go into survival, and death *is* a part of life. But whether the person survives or not, the love that goes into a prayer is a good thing, and I believe that in some way or another it *does* help the person, whether it may help with their healing/survival, or in other ways.

Love is the spiritual realm's gold. Creating it, feeling it, and giving it always causes some form of enrichment, to the person, to the giver, and to our world... and it is imperishable. In some ways I see it as being all around us, like the air we breathe---a sort of an "atmosphere" of love, a "vibe" if you will. The more love you feel and put out, the more you're adding to that "psychic" atmosphere and vibe.

Ever walk into someone's home, and either feel "at home" right away (a warmth), or "chilled", as if the place has a "cold, sterile" feel to it, or even an "angry" feeling? Sometimes the decor, etc. can contribute to that, but sometimes it's also just the "vibes" that the people living there have "put into the air," so to speak. I can walk into two identically-furnished living rooms (same arrangement, color scheme, etc.), and if there's been a lot of strong emotion experienced in the room, I often tune into it. One room may feel welcoming; the other, rejecting. Sometimes the arrangement has to do with it (getting into a touch of feng shui here)---but often people arrange their furniture, and choose color schemes, to express something about themselves. I absolutely HATE having a couch set with it's back to the entry point into the room... because it's saying "I turn my back to you." If it's turned toward the entry point, it's saying "come in and sit down."

Ah, I digress. Anyway, I think love, and prayer, matter.

[JeffreyWKramer]

More "where the hell is that link?" at 11:00

The links are quite prominent in the fossil record. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the facts, and is buying bullshit creationist arguments which have been thoroughly discredited for decades.

[Doug Strange]

Lack of evidence that something exists is a fairly good reason to suspect it does not exist.Hard to disagree with that. But that isn't where you started. "God does not exist" is not the same thing as "I suspect (or even strongly suspect) that God does not exist."When the things someone believes turn out to be contrary to observable reality, that's a good reason to move from doubting something to disbelieving that something. Also in agreement here. But nothing I (and some others in this thread) personally believe IS contrary to observable reality.

Religion isn't the only source of hate, but it is all too often one source. When religion teaches that people who believe differently are wrong, and often evil heretics - and most religions do teach this, in one form or another - that goes a long way toward reinforcing the hatred of those outside the group.Religion doesn't teach anything. People do. If someone's been indoctrinated to do evil things, it's by another person or group of people. Corrupt people with personal agendas outside religion.

I don't know. I suppose there could be some inherently evil, harmful religions out there, but the biggies are not. Harm done in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever...that has nothing to do with the actual tenets of those faiths, and I'm surprised to hear someone as learned as you insisting otherwise.

[macul]

There are times when I'm embarrased to call myself an athiest. One of our major complaints is that religious people supposedly just can't leave us alone and that they are always shoving their beliefs down our throats. It seems nowadays to be the opposite. These days we have the angry athiest running around shouting "there is no god!" as loud and obnoxiously as they can.

I don't get. I really don't. At one point all we wanted was to be left alone. We didn't want to be ridiculed. We didn't want to be scorned. We just wanted to be left alone with our beliefs (or lack of). Did we forget those days? Or did we decide that now it's our turn to be the Asshole?

As for the topic, I can see prayer working and helping. Does that mean some higher power will suddenly take notice and make things right? No, but I can see prayer working if it helps the person clear their mind of troubles.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It really does amaze me how supposed intellectuals use the rash and totalitarian actions of some folks to damn all religious folks. Should we judge atheism from the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot? If I wanted to put on blinders and use logic as a weapon instead of a tool, I could argue that the greatest atrocities committed in the history of man were committed in the last century by atheist. But then someone would bring up the Catholic Church's record during times like Inquisition and round and round we would go.

As I've noted, all evil does not come from religion, but it does its part.

I notice the while the religious right is (rightfully) lambasted no one ever acknowledges that faith was what drove and sustained Dr. King and Gandhi. It seems that in the world of some unbelievers these men were irrational, delusional folks who somehow managed to vastly improve the state of man and change the course of nations and empires despite their ridiculous reliance on faith.

I'd agree with that. They accomplished what they did despite the blinders. Certainly not because of them.

Trust me, I understand the resentment that many folks feel towards the oppressive tendencies that many supposed people of faith exhibit. In some ways, I think being a Christian and a Progressive is the hardest sets of beliefs to have right now in America. There really is no safe port. But it is down right ignorant to view intolerance as being a problem that stems from believing in a higher power and not from basic flaws in human nature.
All religion represses. If nothing else, it oppresses rational thought.

You are correct that ultimately, most evils are the result of flaws in human nature. However, religion adds to the problem, in ways I've already mentioned. Beyond that, good also results from human nature. Since religion apparently offers nothing indespensible to the equation, and offers much which impedes progress, it is better done away with... not by force of law or at gunpoint, but through the light of logic and fact and rationality and common sense.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So, it could at some later points in the development in our species as well, or not.

But we don't know.



One can make the same argument about sickle cell anemia, or smallpox. I prefer to deal with the present. Right now, it gets in the way. If it turns out useful, it will come back. Time to try riding without the training wheels and the blindfold, though.

[Hoss]

Personally, I pray for results. I pray for wisdom, guidance, strength, integrity etc. I know that from a physical universe POV folks would say that other kinds of meditations can garner similar results. For me they never have but I'm willing to concede that might be an individual thing.

Either way, my view of science is that it explains the way God works. I believe that as long as I am willing to concede that there are many more things that I don't know than there are things I do know, then there are no contradictions between science and my Christian faith. I will admit that I sometimes get frustrated with believers who put down good sound scientific discoveries because it does not jive with their reading of scripture.

I also get frustrated with non-believers who are so myopic and self-assured that they can’t conceive the possibility that somewhere down the road science will discover that there is a pattern and a connectedness that will be very much like the God that our genetics tells us exists. And by genetics, I'm referring to the fact that I know of no culture in the history of man that did not have a concept of a greater, supernatural force that shaped and created man.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Also in agreement here. But nothing I (and some others in this thread) personally believe IS contrary to observable reality.

Please explain to me, then, by what process of the natural world miracles and supernatural events - you know, the sorts of concepts religion is based around - can occur.

If you take the supernatural out of religion, you have something different - philosophy. I have no problem with philosophy, though like all ideas, some philosophies are better than others.
I don't know. I suppose there could be some inherently evil, harmful religions out there, but the biggies are not. Harm done in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever...that has nothing to do with the actual tenets of those faiths, and I'm surprised to hear someone as learned as you insisting otherwise.

The greatest harm, in many ways, is the intellectual harm done. People beliving in things which are not true, and things which counteracts that which is true. As such, people mistake nonsense for truth, pseudoscience and superstiton for fact, and ignorance for knowledge. Thus we have people fighting to teach mythology in evolution classes, people who believed one crazy thing (standard religions) being pre-set by culture to believe even stupider things (Scientology, televangelist hucksters, pseudoscientific gobbledegook). These things do real harm... not as dramatic as fanatics with car bombs, mind you, but in the long run, this harm directly impacts more people, and thus does more overall harm.

Again, I encourage those who want to seriously look at these ideas to check out Sagan's THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD. Sagan does a much better job of explaining these things than I can, both due to space constraints and due to him simply being a better writer and a smarter guy than me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There are times when I'm embarrased to call myself an athiest. One of our major complaints is that religious people supposedly just can't leave us alone and that they are always shoving their beliefs down our throats. It seems nowadays to be the opposite. These days we have the angry athiest running around shouting "there is no god!" as loud and obnoxiously as they can.

I don't get. I really don't. At one point all we wanted was to be left alone. We didn't want to be ridiculed. We didn't want to be scorned. We just wanted to be left alone with our beliefs (or lack of). Did we forget those days? Or did we decide that now it's our turn to be the Asshole?

I decided it's time to stop sitting silent and watching ignorance and nonsense continue to reign.

As for the topic, I can see prayer working and helping. Does that mean some higher power will suddenly take notice and make things right? No, but I can see prayer working if it helps the person clear their mind of troubles.

As I've noted in previous threads, there is some evidence based on previous studies that prayer can have some beneficial effects on healing. It is exactly the same degree of effect that non-spiritual meditation, self-hypnosis and similar phenomena can produce, and there is no difference noted between these types (or between different faiths, for the prayer).

[JeffreyWKramer]

And by genetics, I'm referring to the fact that I know of no culture in the history of man that did not have a concept of a greater, supernatural force that shaped and created man.


It's not genetics. It's cultural development. Freud does a good job of covering this in "The Future of an Illusion."

[macul]

I decided it's time to stop sitting silent and watching ignorance and nonsense continue to reign.

Is it not better to live and let live? If they aren't bothering you, then so what? What's the point? What do you hope to accomplish?

If during the course of a casual conversation with someone in a coffee shop that person happens to mention they are Christian, will you break out this routine? Will you compare their beliefs with those of fairies, elves, and so on? Will you accuse them of repressing others? Of being ignorant?

If so, then I assume you'd have zero problems with a Christian taking the opposite stance with you, right?


As I've noted in previous threads, there is some evidence based on previous studies that prayer can have some beneficial effects on healing. It is exactly the same degree of effect that non-spiritual meditation, self-hypnosis and similar phenomena can produce, and there is no difference noted between these types (or between different faiths, for the prayer).

Probably no difference, but if that's the method the person chooses and it helps them, then more power to them. It isn't my place to tell them otherwise.

[Matt Algren]

I'm having a weird flashback to the movie Amadeus. The movie made me sad too.

[darkkeeperjr]

The links are quite prominent in the fossil record. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the facts, and is buying bullshit creationist arguments which have been thoroughly discredited for decades.

Discredited by who?

[west3man]

One can make the same argument about sickle cell anemia, or smallpox. I prefer to deal with the present. Right now, it gets in the way. If it turns out useful, it will come back. Time to try riding without the training wheels and the blindfold, though.
Are you saying that sickle cell and smallpox were largely beneficial to society at one point and may be, again, one day?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Is it not better to live and let live? If they aren't bothering you, then so what? What's the point? What do you hope to accomplish?


I've already explained the point, several times. And, I don't think it's just a live-and-let-live matter... we aren't talking something trivial like favorite baseball teams or hairstyles here. The supernaturalist point of view has a very real impact on a lot of aspects of the world, and I'm convinced that impact is more a negative than a positive one.

If during the course of a casual conversation with someone in a coffee shop that person happens to mention they are Christian, will you break out this routine? Will you compare their beliefs with those of fairies, elves, and so on? Will you accuse them of repressing others? Of being ignorant?

Nope, because that's the wrong venue. Similarly, I don't discuss these matters in the conduct of my professional activities. When religious matters come up with clients, I encourage them to seek out religious guidance if that is what they think they need to do. But, this is a discussion board, a place for open discussion of topics. Similarly, if someone in a coffee shop invited a discussion or debate about beliefs, yep, I'd say pretty much what I have said here. In fact, I've done so on several occasions, with various people.

If so, then I assume you'd have zero problems with a Christian taking the opposite stance with you, right?
I've had any number of Christians do exactly that over the years. The difference is, they had nothing but dogma and rhetorical tricks to back up their arguments.

Interestingly, my observation over the years has been that generally speaking (there are of course exceptions in both directions, as with most things involving people), the more generally informed religious people are - about science, politics, history, other religions, philosophy, the news, etc. - the less traditional or dogmatic they tend to be regarding their faith, and the more they conceptualize their religion in philosophical terms, vs. actually believing in supernatural beings and events. Often they have come to understand that the supernatural aspects of their faith are fictional, and they tend to view concepts such as angels, God, miracles and heaven as metaphor and allegory, rather than truth. That I have no real problem with, and if that was the way religion was taught and viewed in society, I'd not be taking the stand I'm taking here. But, sadly, the reality is that most people continue to think about and teach religion as if the fables were literal - vs. symbolic, or literary, or metaphoric - truths. That, I have lots of problems with, obviously.

Probably no difference, but if that's the method the person chooses and it helps them, then more power to them. It isn't my place to tell them otherwise.
I wouldn't tell them not to do it, either, but I think we are better off as a society correctly identifying the active component of such "miracles" - and the evidence doesn't suggest it is anything supernatural or spiritual. If you know that certain altered states of consciousness can promote healing - and that is pretty much what the available data suggests, in a nutshell - that's knowledge you can use. Hell, I use it frequently, in the form of meditation, self-hypnosis and guided imagery, for pain control and various other effects. Focus on the part that actually promotes an effect, and toss aside the superstition and claptrap trappings and misplaced faith.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Discredited by who?

Pretty much anyone with an IQ larger than his or her shoe size who has actually studied the data. Hell, even the *Vatican* - about as conservative and traditionalist a religious organization as there is - doesn't argue against evolution any more.

Missing links are all over the fossil record, and in some cases, readily available among living animals. Consider the lungfish, the coelecanth, sharks, the archaeopterex, the various early hominids. There are fossils of transitional-form whales, in which the evolution from leg to flipper is writ large in the stone.

Or, look at genetics. The genetic record demonstrates the steps in evolution, and the various branching-off points, quite clearly.

Physiology, same story. Science has all the evidence of the real world on its side. Religion has books written ages ago, full of demonstrably nonsense stuff. The earth isn't thousands of years old*, it's billions of years old.

Really, go educate yourself rather than believing what you're told by some backward, willfully-ignorant fundamentalist ignoramus. Go actually study some biology beyond the high school level.



* And before someone goes with that old "maybe the Bible didn't really, literally, mean days" nonsense, I say fine. If you want to argue that the Bible is metaphor, fine. But you can't have it both ways. You can't claim it's literal truth when you want, then fall back on the "metaphor" argument when what the text says is clearly hooey. The ancient Jews knew the concept of days, months, years, and if they meant "era" instead of "seven days" they would have said that. It's myth, not reality, on par with the Greek myths. Deal with it.

[Drew Van T.]

In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.


Not sure if this has come up already (man, for such a silly survey, this thread is long) but a logical explanation for the last part might be that patients knowing that they were being prayed for were worried about letting the praying people down. Because as pointless as it is, it's still a kind of charity they're receiving, which also makes it a kind of a social exchange. And because those patients had to worry about this in addition to everything else, they experienced more stress, and while stress is certainly not a direct cause of medical complications, it still doesn't HELP.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Are you saying that sickle cell and smallpox were largely beneficial to society at one point and may be, again, one day?

The same genes which, when present in double-recessive form, cause sickle cell anemia also provide resistance to malaria. These days we have drugs for that, but that wasn't always the case. Hell, it isn't even always the case in parts of Africa - where malaria is most common - even today. Those genes definitely served an adaptive function, and still do for some people. Unfortunately, they also spell trouble for a few people who inherit the wrong mix of genetic traits.

Smallpox - and diseases of all kinds, really - serve as a natural method of evening populations. Thankfully, we aren't slaves to nature's whims. That can come to cause problems, though - overpopulation, for one. I think the benefit is worth the cost, but who knows about the future?

Further, many disease bacterium and virii mutate easily and frequently. We have no idea today what other, earlier - and potentially beneficial - forms smallpox might have taken, but we do know that many cataclysmic diseases reflect either a mutation from a form which was originally neutral, symbiotic or somewhat beneficial to something harmful, or something that was neutral, symbiotic or beneficial within its original environment and/or host species branching out to impact another environment or species for which it is harmful. So, yeah, for all we know, the ancestor of smallpox might have been something beneficial - and it might also be possible that smallpox, allowed to continue, might have someday evolved into something beneficial.

Mind you, I'm not saying that because these things "might be", we should release smallpox into the population again, or not seek cures for sickle cell anemia. Actually, I'm saying quite the opposite - the world is a better place with smallpox having been defeated, and it will be a better place once we have genetic therapies which can cure sickle cell. And, the same thing is true of religion. Just because it did arguably serve a purpose at some point in the past, and might conceivably serve a purpose in some hypothetical future, that's no reason to ignore the negative effects superstitious thinking has on progress in the here and now.

[Spackling Compound]

"They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.



I was sitting with a group of investors one day and we were discussing how to finance a certain project that needed another 2.5 million dollars to get under way for a charity. One man, a millionaire and business man, said, "What about raffling off a car?"

After that, everyone at the table became dejected.
Was that a bad idea? No. But when there is no hope left save for raffles, then....it's over.

I think when someone is very ill, and they are told, "Well, we'll pray for you" there may be a sense of giving up. When a doctor's response to your illness is, "I hope you're a praying man", then you probably won't be too damn happy.

I wonder if these people were a. people of "faith" and b. people who see prayer as a last resort?

If so, I can see the complications increasing.

[Paul McEnery]

All religion represses. If nothing else, it oppresses rational thought.
To echo Solaris, so does falling in love. But I'm still looking forward to the next time I do.

But no, all religion does not repress, nor does it repress rational thought necessarily. As always, it's valuable to read Mary Douglas's Purity and Danger for some genuine anthropology of the way "primitive" religion works.

Essentially, rain magic never gets done except when it's the rainy season -- which is a pretty smart idea. Do the magicians believe they're "causing" the rain? Not really. What they're doing is creating a narrative in which they participate in the seasons, in some way adding personality to the occasion.

Among other things, this is what goes on when you pray for someone. You personalize and take control of the situation, which is utterly vital when you've lost control and you're facing the ultimate in depersonalization -- death.

Again, the flaw in looking at religion and ritual as somehow separate from secular observances throws up false difficulties. We all participate in ritual observances all the time, whether its something as pointless as wearing a tie to work, or as fun as tapping your smokes before you draw one out, or any number of other things. They all create meaning, they all personalize our reality.

The question is not whether we should get rid of ritual, but to exercise choice over which rituals we choose to play in and with. What you're missing here is that viewing reality through magico-religious filters does actually add a level of meaning. Not all of that meaning is healthy, true; but it can be if you choose it.

[JeffreyWKramer]

What you're missing here is that viewing reality through magico-religious filters does actually add a level of meaning.

No, it adds a level of illusion and decoration, at best. There's nothing innately wrong with illusion and decoration, of course, but it's better to not mistake such things for reality - and as such, it's better to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it was.

[Paul McEnery]

No, it adds a level of illusion and decoration, at best. There's nothing innately wrong with illusion and decoration, of course, but it's better to not mistake such things for reality - and as such, it's better to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it was.
No, you're 100% absolutely and demonstrably wrong here.

And actually, that's a fairly insulting attitude. Not that I'm insulted :) but I can see that others would be.

What's more, it may not be obvious to you, but what you're doing here is accepting the terms of reference of orthodox Christianity. These are not the only terms of reference available to speak of these matters.

[Winslow]

Jeffrey - What do you think of Carl Jung?

Just curious. 'Cause you speak highly of symbols, myth, and archetype, yet dismiss their spiritual relevance. Which confuses me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

No, you're 100% absolutely and demonstrably wrong here.
Big claim. Please demonstrate.

What's more, it may not be obvious to you, but what you're doing here is accepting the terms of reference of orthodox Christianity. These are not the only terms of reference available to speak of these matters.

Not really. I'm speaking more in Christian terms because the audience is predominantly Christian, and because this country - currently the predominant one, and one of the few potentially ready to move beyind mystic bullshit - is where I'm at and where CBR is mostly centered... but I don't buy Hinduism or Islam or Buddhist mysticism or Wicca any more than I buy Christianity.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Jeffrey - What do you think of Carl Jung?

Just curious. 'Cause you speak highly of symbols, myth, and archetype, yet dismiss their spiritual relevance. Which confuses me.


Jung was a very smart guy who made some very astute observations about a wide variety of cultures and about anthropology and archaeology, but often ended up coming to the wrong conclusions. He saw meaning where in fact there is only cooincidence and random chance (gestalt errors). Also, as with so many of Freud's disciples and spin-offs, he had an unfortunate tendency to mistake model and metaphor for literal reality, and his interest in the mystical led to lots of wooly-headed pseudoscience psychobabble.

At best I find Jung interesting.

As to symbols, myths and such, they have a value - same as the works of great writers - in that art and stories can convey meaningful ideas. There's nothing mystical about that, though - they don't evoke Platonic pure forms, they don't have a power beyond that granted by their cultural prominence, and most importantly, they aren't identical to reality.

I'm also not a strong believer in dream analysis, and certainly not in the classic Jungian or Freudian terms. First off, some dream content is purely the result of random neural activity during sleep. Second, to the extent dream content is symbolic, the symbols have a much more personal (vs. archetypal) meaning than the analysts would have people believe. Snakes and fires and things like that don't mean the same thing to all people, or even all people within the same culture - there are culturally-derived (and possibly, in some cases, instinctual) connotations, but personal experience can change these markedly. For example, dreams of sex can have vastly different meanings for different people, depending on their experience of and beliefs about sex.

[Paul McEnery]

Big claim. Please demonstrate.



Not really. I'm speaking more in Christian terms because the audience is predominantly Christian, and because this country - currently the predominant one, and one of the few potentially ready to move beyind mystic bullshit - is where I'm at and where CBR is mostly centered... but I don't buy Hinduism or Islam or Buddhist mysticism or Wicca any more than I buy Christianity.
Demonstration coming up once I get home. It'll take a bit.

But that's only yes and no that you're talking in Christian terms. Point of fact, they're orthodox Christian terms by way of US evangelical traditions. As you say, those terms of reference are outmoded.

[gary bolt]

My sister has lived with Type 1 diabetes since she was three years old (she's 46) and now has many complications from the disease. 10 years ago she developed neuropathy in her stomach and it looked like she was going to die. At the time she had two young boys (6 and 12 at the time). During that scary period of her life she prayed to god and begged him to let her live long enough to see her boys finish school and become young men. Not too long after that the neuropathy went away. Her boys are now young men and she draws great comfort from her decision to appeal to god and is very thankful that she has lived long enough to see them grow up in her home.

I'm an atheist and think that coincidence is the reason why her health improved after she made a deal with god. However, I draw comfort from the fact that she draws comfort from the "deal" she made.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm an atheist and think that coincidence is the reason why her health improved after she made a deal with god. However, I draw comfort from the fact that she draws comfort from the "deal" she made.

I don't have a big problem with that on the individual level, either. That's why, even if ethical and professional standards didn't generally preclude such behavior, I wouldn't get involved in rocking the ideological boats of those of my clients who have a spiritual bent - most of the people I work with are just too fragile. Beyond that, I have more than enough on my hands dealing with a person's psychiatric illnesses and trauma-induced symptoms without tackling culturally-induced delusional thinking - particularly since that isn't why people come to see me in the first place.

The problem is, things don't exist just on the individual level, and the same thing which might bring comfort to an individual instills ignorance and nonsense-thinking among the masses. The problem is really more of a social one than an individual one.

[Winslow]

However, I draw comfort from the fact that she draws comfort from the "deal" she made.

How is she doing?

You started a thread about her a few weeks ago, right?

[Winslow]

At best I find Jung interesting.

So much for my appeal to the concept of Synchronicity.

But doesn't the commonality of archetype/symbols across cultures say something about the human spiritual experience?

[Paul McEnery]

So much for my appeal to the concept of Synchronicity.

But doesn't the commonality of archetype/symbols across cultures say something about the human spiritual experience?
I think so. But not what Jung thought it did.

I mean, I see the appeal of the collective unconscious idea, and I dip in and out of the idea that we are all at a deep level one spirit, but at the end of the day, it seems obvious to me that what we all share is a similar hard-wiring, a limited number of possible symbols and the same existential issues that require symbolization.

Jung (and Eliade and Campbell) have to gloss over the differences in cultures to draw their grand conclusions. Close examination shows that their essentialist confidence is misplaced.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So much for my appeal to the concept of Synchronicity.

But doesn't the commonality of archetype/symbols across cultures say something about the human spiritual experience?

It says a lot less than what Jung would have you believe. For one thing, while he's correct that a lot of symbols appear in multiple cultures, they don't really tend to mean the same thing across cultures. The swastika and variants, for example, meant different things in India and in Native American cultures - and something else entirely when appropriated by the Nazis.

Interestingly, the symbols which appear across cultures most frequently are those which are symmetrical - circles, triangles and things like the swastika, for example. The most likely explanation for this apparent commonality is that we have a natural attraction to symmetry. That tendency is also evident in who we find attractive - while things like preferred weight or build, or facial hair, or hair length - vary from culture to culture and across time, across all cultures, people tend to find people with more symmetrical features more attractive than those with less symmetrical features. This may be instinctual, and reflecting the fact that the presence severely asymetrical features generally corresponds to poor health, and can be a sign of genetic abnormalities.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hey, Paul and I agree on something in this discussion!

[Paul McEnery]

At the same time, anecdotally, I've had interesting dreams that have sent me to my Eliade and Jung to find cultural analogs.

I mean, I haven't been to the Serengetti -- hell, I don't know how to spell it, even. But I did have a world tree dream in which I was in the Serengetti -- I think -- with my back against the tree and a lion under one arm and an antelope under the other. I forget which side, now, but these are indeed symbols for the two sides of human nature in Hindu mythology, with exactly the same emotional content as the dream offered.

Now you could say that the symbols are obvious, which in some sense I suppose they are; then again, I didn't know those animals were directly connected to chakra work in exactly the way that I was studying it.

And no, I hadn't subliminally read that page before.

So I don't know.

[gary bolt]

How is she doing?

You started a thread about her a few weeks ago, right?

To answer in generalities - she doing pretty good. I'll resurrect the thread and explain further a little bit later.

Thanks for asking, Winslow.

[Winslow]

To answer in generalities - she doing pretty good. I'll resurrect the thread and explain further a little bit later.

Thanks for asking, Winslow.

Your welcome and glad to hear it.

[Cosmic Average]

Religion doesn't teach anything.

You're absolutely right on that score! :p

People do. If someone's been indoctrinated to do evil things, it's by another person or group of people. Corrupt people with personal agendas outside religion.


"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward."

Quran, 4:74

"As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise. "

Quran, 5:38

"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

Quran, 4:89

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. "

Quran, 4:34

"O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Quran, 33:59


"Bring ye up", it shall be said, "The wrong-doers and their wives, and the things they worshipped- "

"Instead of Allah, and lead them to the path to hell; "

Quran, 37:22-23

The Quran (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/)

[Valmore]

Since "sin" is defined as the violation of a religious proscription, its a meaningless word in real-world terms. In reality, it exists only to the extent fairies and unicorns exist - as a concept.

I prefer to go with the concept of objective harm. That's something which can be directly observed or easily inferred from observed fact. Homosexuality isn't objectively harmful, or at least no more or less so than