Author Topic: Faith-Based Topic  (Read 3213 times)

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2006, 07:19:57 am »
but you know: its just me, making up absurdities.
Really? Ok, I'll just totally ignore everything you just said about The New York Times, the 3rd party-ness of those sites, and the Skeptic, and just go along with my own assumption of those sites from their URL name, instead of the actual content.

Rat

  • Alternate Primary Member
  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Impersonal Text
    • View Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2006, 07:37:59 am »

actually, the earliest religions believed in the mother goddess that created the rest of the god. The most well know being mother gaia & chaos (darkness if you an idiot.)

but hell, I only took mythology in collage and had to study this. what would I know?


I'm pretty sure the entire thing about most early religions being based on observable phenomenon is pretty standard faire to at least be mentioned in a mythology class, even at least once. But then, you took one full class in, if I am to understand correctly, a series of pictures pasted together, so what could I possibly know in comparison? (I had to say that. It was there.... there, staring in my face, demanding to be said... I apolgize)


also, Those without faith have, in study, been shown to have a worse luck then those who do.

infact, a recent study (look what I can magically pull out of my absurbness!) shows that people wanting to get pregant had 50% higher sucess rate with prayer then those without.

Those who recieved pray while ill had a higher recovery rate, as well.

But hey, its only a medical journal, it's all gotta be boogus shit I'm making up, right?
http://home.att.net/~stpaulparkucc/id47.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cardiac.html
http://www.mercola.com/article/prayer/dossey.htm
http://www.sptimes.com/News/040101/TampaBay/Prayer_makes_medical_.shtml
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/ppv.php?id=cqresrre2005011400
http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/medstudy.html
http://www.ishpssb.org/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=53&print=1
Athiest also have higher death rates, by the way.

There also more likely to do drugs, develop alcoholism, and get arrested.

I mean... there's no way a prayer could actually cause somesort of healing. no way having a belief in a god, that having a prespection of idea of faith could possibly help anybody.

Sure. I've gotta be.

Of course, another way to look at it is in the sense of prayer possibly acting as a placebo in a sense. If a person prays, and they believe their prayers will be answered, they might be more likely to create an instance in which a prayer is answered. Also, we do know that people have a reaction to placebos that cause them to essentially "heal themselves" if they believe that something is great medicine that is going to work and cure them. So if a deeply religious or spiritual person believes that praying is going to help them, I imagine you can expect the same reaction.

But then, that idea's only been posted in medical journals, so I obviously pulled it out of my ass. 

But it's all very questionable. You can't absolutely prove these things completely, because there are always things that hinge on the basic question of whether there is or isn't a God, which is arguable and difficult to determine as absolute. It's why it's called a faith - you have to have faith it's true. Yet, if you have faith and then pray, you might see a set of instances and believe that God is improving your life - and if there is a God, he is, and if there isn't a God, then it can so easily be the placebo effect or the fallacy of positive instances or something along those lines. See? It comes back to that question. Is there or isn't there a God?

Even the last link that you post leads to an abstract on a paper a person did that apparently concludes that it is difficult, even impossible, to determine whether or not prayer does or does not work, at least as far as how the experiments are conducted on the subject.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2006, 09:20:01 am »
The worst thing about free speech, is that people can bullshit at the expense of the truth. And when they do it on the Internet, there is almost no accountability at all. What a shame that simply banning somebody like grey_the_angel would be so much easier than convincing other people to shun his poor reasoning, and yet would accomplish so comparatively little. In this battle for hearts and minds—not merely at the Compendium, mind you, but throughout our lives—sometimes it seems as though people we are battling against are also the people on whose behalf we are battling in the first place.

You’ve made it evident how thoroughly you believe yourself, Grey. You’re not trying to fool anybody…you’re honestly just trying to get your point out there, and win some hearts and minds—no different than me, here.

Except, you know…there’s that one little detail about you being hopelessly wrong.


its basically instinctual to have a faith. people have to believe into something. its be that way since before recorded history when we had sun gods and stuff.

Actually, most early religions seem to come about from people trying to explain things that occured in nature - notice how sun gods always have the duty of taking the sun across the sky, making sure it rose, making sure it set. Maybe they felt afterwards that they should be thankful for that,  or even afraid of the sun disappearing or failing to rise or fall or shine (I imagine eclipses helped spread that idea a bit), which most likely led to the worship aspect, rather than any supposed "instinct."

...Just randomly posting my two cents.

actually, the earliest religions believed in the mother goddess that created the rest of the god. The most well know being mother gaia & chaos (darkness if you an idiot.)

but hell, I only took mythology in collage and had to study this. what would I know?

Rat is more or less correct: Religion as we know it evolved from mysticism. It was the quest of our ancestors to satisfy their innate curiosity about the basic nature of their world, and of themselves—a journey they pursued without the benefit of the advanced language to phrase ideas, and without the benefit of a scientific methodology with which to pursue empirical knowledge. Who can blame them for pursuing such deep philosophical understanding using the only primitive means that existed in those days: association, precedent, wishful thinking, and a hearty dose of imagination?

As people realized that mysticism could be used as a means of power and control, it did not take long for religion to appear in the world. And while a lot has chanced since the days of the early religious mystics, one thing that has not is people’s willingness to submit themselves and subject others to an ethereal authority who provides order and purpose against danger and uncertainty.

You may have taken a college class on mythology, Grey, but you did not learn anything beyond what you were told. Questioning someone as coherent as Rat with nothing but a few meaningless pieces of trivia and the presumption that your meager offering represents a significant intelligence…this goes beyond mere audacity. You don’t even realize your audaciousness; you’re a classic example of everything that is wrong with faith-based thinking, and religion itself.

It almost always occur. At some point, [atheists] curse/denounce a religous figure randomly.

Never mind that your own argument is entirely a random denunciation of “atheists.” Even ignoring your hypocrisy, it is worth reiterating that the practitioners of a religion are that religion. Influential religious figures are focal points for the vitality and proliferation of their religion, and of a faith-based worldview in general. Denouncing them is an important part of someday destroying religion’s tyrannical hold on the human race. But you weren’t really thinking about any of that, were you? I imagine you were only trying to link the act of denouncing a religious person to your stereotype of atheists as spiteful, petty, and hate-filled.

also, Those without faith have, in study, been shown to have a worse luck then those who do.

Assuming that “study” even exists, either it is scientifically bogus or you are grossly misrepresenting it. “Luck” is a popular concept in the social sphere, but has no scientific legitimacy. We speak of statistical probabilities, not luck. Such a term has no testable definition, and the variables in such an experiment could not be isolated until “faith” were also to be quantifiably defined.

You’re making up facts to suit your agenda. It reminds me of the old wisdom that, when faced with a challenge, the ordinary person will spend far greater energy defending his or her social standing, while the extraordinary person will actually engage the challenge. In your case, it means you are too busy defending what you already believe to actually consider the issue at hand. As Chibi pointed out earlier, you’ve already convinced yourself, and your actions here are meant solely to go on convincing yourself and anybody else who will listen. That’s why I’m here at all—not to argue with you, but to expose you as somebody not to be believed.

infact, a recent study (look what I can magically pull out of my absurbness!) shows that people wanting to get pregant had 50% higher sucess rate with prayer then those without. Those who recieved pray while ill had a higher recovery rate, as well.

To support your claim, you cite at the end of your post this website:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cardiac.html

However, that very website includes this interesting tidbit:



It doesn’t take long to undercover the truth: Other Christians, just like you, are also more than happy to make up whatever facts they need in order to further their agenda.

Quote
The much-hyped Columbia University prayer study was flawed and suspicious from the start but now has been fatally minted with fraud. The first-named author doesn't respond to inquiries. The "lead" author said he didn't learn of the study until months after it was completed. And now the mysterious third author, indicted by a federal grand jury, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud. All his previous studies must now be questioned.

Courtesy of:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_28/ai_n6194238

So there we have it. Some flimflam religious types cook up a phony study that “proves” prayer has these beneficial medical effects on people. The traditional media give it some coverage, and religious organizations pick up on it and repeat it as truth thereafter. Meanwhile, the study is soon discredited, but by then the only people who are interested in hearing the truth are the ones who saw through that study right from the start. The damage is done. Indeed, here you are, years later, quoting it as though it were some valid piece of the sum of human knowledge.

But hey, its only a medical journal, it's all gotta be boogus shit I'm making up, right?

In this case, it wasn’t you who made up the study. But you still share some fault in passing along false information as though it were true. If only you could conceive of science as a vehicle to further human understanding, rather than a tool to tell you what you want to hear! If only!

http://home.att.net/~stpaulparkucc/id47.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cardiac.html
http://www.mercola.com/article/prayer/dossey.htm
http://www.sptimes.com/News/040101/TampaBay/Prayer_makes_medical_.shtml
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/ppv.php?id=cqresrre2005011400
http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/medstudy.html
http://www.ishpssb.org/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=53&print=1

We’ve already debunked one of your links. Let’s talk about some of the others, since you were so kind to provide us with the means of your undoing.


Medical Studies on Prayer:
Can You Pray Your Way to Health?
http://home.att.net/~stpaulparkucc/id47.htm

This bright-red webpage is typical of religious fundamentalists who try to prove that their beliefs have scientific credibility by taking a tiny shard of real science that doesn’t actually prove their point, but, rather, fails to completely disprove their point, and then heralding that dubious honor as a victory by subtly mixing tiny bits of scientifically relevant material in with a whole bunch of meaningless discussion. Here is the only scientifically relevant quote from the entire page:

Quote
Overall, even most science-and-faith researchers consider the effects of intercessory prayer to be weak, at best. … [Intercessory prayer] could be psychological in origin--having someone take the time to touch you and pray on your behalf makes you feel better about life, thus lessening pain. But psychological effects can be just as real as physical effects, and in this case prayer appears to lead to tangible benefits.

So, prayer might help some people—namely, those who already believe in the power of prayer—to achieve a more positive mindset, which could in turn affect their health in a beneficial way. Now that is a testable hypothesis. But it doesn’t have anything to do with prayer itself. It only establishes the premise that, if people do believe that prayer can make a difference, then knowing that they are being prayed for might help them to heal themselves. It isn’t hard to see that the prayer itself is meaningless; it could be replaced with any neutral activity that people believe will have a beneficial effect on them.

And that’s it. That’s the whole scientific value of that entire, hard-to-read site. Indeed, read the rest of the site, and you will see that they themselves admit what I have just said, with the only difference being that they tacitly endorse prayer as being of holy value anyway:

Quote
Why could prayer help you when you pray for yourself but not help others when you pray for them? Intercessory prayer could only function via mystical power, but prayer for the self might have an effect similar to meditation, endorsed in both secular and spiritual theories of healing. The "answers" that come from prayer might be divinely provided, or reflect a person's own contemplative understanding of his or her condition. The nonsectarian form of prayer, which is akin to meditation and used for stress reduction, has long been recognized by clinicians to improve one's sense of well-being.

Martin Seligman, a former president of the American Psychological Association, has supposed that prayer helps recovery from illness and depression by focusing the mind on things to be grateful for in life. Studies by Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard University have shown that inducing a relaxed state of mind is good both for health and immune-system response. Prayer might work partly in this way. Says Koenig, "I view the benefits of prayer mainly as psychological or social, not as a supernatural effect, though of course the research can't rule that out. All the research can show is that prayer sometimes really does confer benefits."

Put another way: Lack of strong evidence for intercessory prayer seems to argue against standard ideas about the supernatural as a commanding force that intervenes to cure. Yet the presence of evidence for effects of prayer on the self seems to argue that we would be foolish to assume away faith.


Prayer and Medical Science
http://www.mercola.com/article/prayer/dossey.htm

This website is painful, not on the eye but on the brain. It isn’t so much an argument in favor of prayer so much as a bait-and-switch tactic by religious fundamentalists who want to legitimize prayer as a valuable medical tool by attacking other kinds of medicine as though there were some zero-some equivalence, packing the intellectual pond with red herrings that detract from the matter at hand, drowning out the scarcity of any real supporting science with a glut of extraneous and completely irrelevant discussion, and, in general, insulting the intelligence of anybody reading their article.

Just look at one little example of the drivel you made me read through, Grey:

Quote
Richard Smith,15 editor of the British Medical Journal, agrees, stating, "only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence. . . . This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have not been assessed at all."

And David A. Grimes16 of the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine states, "much, if not most, of contemporary medical practice still lacks a scientific foundation."

These observations suggest that a double standard is perhaps being applied to prayer research, according to which levels of proof are demanded that may not be required of conventional therapies-the "rubber ruler," the raising of the bar, the ever-lengthening playing field.17

Do serious scientists really believe that the effects of intercessory prayer are fantasy, as several letter writers imply? No doubt some do.

But in a recent survey18 of the spiritual beliefs of American scientists, 39% of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians said they not only believed in God, but in a god who answers prayers.

The highest rate of belief was found in the field of mathematics, which is generally considered the most precise of all the sciences. Many distinguished scientists favor prayer. A long list of individuals, including Nobelists, who have been cordial to consciousness-related events, such as distant, intercessory prayer, has been assembled by philosopher David Griffin.

Not even you could have made it through that entire article, and you actually believe in their premise! The whole article is bunk. I could not find a single statement of scientific relevance in the whole thing.


Prayer Makes Medical Advances
http://www.sptimes.com/News/040101/TampaBay/Prayer_makes_medical_.shtml

Why do I get the feeling you just googled something like “prayer effects medicine,” and then simply copy-and-pasted the first seven links you found? Ugh! Let’s get on with it. The major support in this article for the power of prayer is that people believe prayer works:

Quote
A Time magazine poll found 82 percent of Americans believe in the healing power of prayer. In another study Larson cited, 79 percent of hospital patients said they believed faith and spirituality can help people, 56 percent believed it had helped them recover and 63 percent said doctors should talk to patients about this it.

Just 10 percent of doctors surveyed had done so, however.

So 82 percent of Americans believe in the healing power of prayer? Good for them. I’ve got another statistic for you: Only 24 percent of Americans can name two or more Supreme Court justices. Being in the majority doesn’t make you right. And even if we were to assume that it did, look at that statistic for doctors: Only ten percent talked about prayer with their patients. You know…“doctors.” The people who actually know something about medicine.

Quote
The Rev. Mack Sigmon, senior minister at Peace Memorial Presbyterian Church in downtown Clearwater, was not surprised.

He frequently finds that parishioners, especially the elderly and seriously ill, want their doctors to understand the importance of their faith, but doctors do not. Patients such as Faith McKiernan say they don't understand how anyone could divorce the two. She credits her faith in God, as well as regular prayer, for helping her battle breast cancer. She was diagnosed around Thanksgiving, had surgery and gets weekly chemotherapy from Goldenfarb. Right now, her prognosis appears good.

I’d like to see how well Ms. McKiernan would fare if she were to renounce her surgery and chemotherapy, and focus all her energy on prayer and being prayed to.

There’s a reason, Grey, why religion has lost so much ground in modern times: It doesn’t work! People prayed and chanted spells and poured holy oils for thousands of years, and to no avail! But scientific medicine has yielded palpable treasures of human health beyond the wildest dreams of any shaman or pastor.

You are dishonorably stealing the credit from real medicine and attributing it to your cockamamie religious values.


Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/medstudy.html

I see you saved the best for last. You obviously did not bother to read this article, either. All this time we have entertained the notion that religious fundamentalists want science to back up their claims. Many of them do…but many of them don’t. They’ve been discredited and castigated so many times by scientific discovery that they have developed an aversion to it, which fits well into the Christian contempt for knowledge and education. This website which you offered as proof of the power of prayer actually consists of people who believe that science has no authority whatsoever to make that judgment:

Quote
As they tried to press prayer into a scientifically measurable form, the researchers turned it into something other than biblical prayer. For instance, the intercessors were told that while they might otherwise pray as they wanted for each anonymous patient, a particular phrase had to be prayed in every prayer, exactly as given by the scientists. Also, the prayers were to be offered only for a two-week period. Specific medical results had to be recognized, and within a thirty-day window. Moreover, only medical results were considered. That prayer might be answered dramatically, but in ways other than the researchers were tabulating, was meaningless and irrelevant in this study.

Scientific investigations of prayer always fail to recognize that prayer is based upon a relationship, a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. And relationships cannot properly be evaluated by scientific methods.

Imagine scientists attempting to quantify a father's love for a child based upon the percentage of the child's requests that the father granted. If the child received what if asked for 51% of the time, would that prove that making requests of the father "worked"? How about 49%? Who determines the minimum percentage necessary for successful asking? And what if the child made unwise requests, causing the percentage to fall precipitously? Would that be evidence disproving the effectiveness of asking? What if the child was asking for something while in disobedience to the father? What if the child was asking of someone who was not even his father?

The scientists apparently presumed that if prayer indeed "works," then the prayers of everyone in the three groups who were asked to pray would be answered because they were members of churches or religious communities. Such presumption, however, divorces prayer from the Gospel of Christ which establishes the relationship between any individual and a prayer—hearing God. These scientists—and, for that matter, most other folks—do not realize that prayers are not heard because of people's religious activities or church membership, but because of what Jesus has done through His life, death, and resurrection (John 14:6; Hebrews 10:19-22). And the Bible makes plain that only those who come to God in prayer through Jesus can expect to have their prayers heard. Not even "the most scientifically rigorous investigation" can isolate and evaluate prayer apart from the dynamics of this spiritual relationship upon which prayer is predicated.

Jesus Himself gives us another reason to be skeptical of efforts to subject the supernatural to the researcher's computer or the scientist's microscope. In His temptation experience, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament to Satan and said, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" (Matthew 4:7). This means it is wrong for the creature to ever say "Prove it!" to his Creator. God has provided ample evidence of His existence, character, and power for us to believe Him and love Him. In light of His abundant self-revelation to us through creation, Christ, and the Bible, we should not challenge God or imply that we need more proof before we can trust and obey Him. And while Jesus was not referring to scientific evaluations of prayer, such studies push very close to putting God to the test.

Finally, it really doesn't matter what studies like these conclude. Whether science seems to support the effectiveness of prayer or to contradict it (and studies have supported, and will continue to support, both sides), Christians do not govern their prayer lives according to the latest scientific experiments. We pray because we have come to know God through Jesus Christ. His Spirit gives us the desire to pray ("Abba! Father!", Gal. 4:6), creating in us a new heavenward orientation that's expressed in frequent communication with our Father. Moreover, we pray because God commands us to pray, and we do not submit the will of God for scientific approval. True Christians will "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17), whether secular research thinks it beneficial or not.

You’re beaten, Grey. You fell victim to the most basic trick in the book: You laid your cards on the table for all to see, but in so doing you revealed how weak your hand truly is. By providing these links you have given yourself the opportunity to be debunked not only from the scientific perspective but from the hard-line fundamentalist perspective too. You’ve been outflanked!

Ah…but you’d rather fight to the bitter end, I think:

Athiest also have higher death rates, by the way.

Go ahead…give us some more links. By all means! Or I can save you the trouble and provide one of my own:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healthier.html

There also more likely to do drugs, develop alcoholism, and get arrested.

No, they are not. In fact, just the opposite. Whoever told you this was lying, either deliberately or by virtue of ignorance. In addition to having fewer substance abuse issues, fewer psychological problems, and fewer run-ins with the law, nonreligious people—atheists included—are much more likely than their religious counterparts to be responsible in their recreational consumption of drugs and alcohol, more likely to be of sound mental health, more likely to be knowledgeable of the law and law-abiding, more likely to be artistically gifted or scientifically talented, more likely to be successful professionally, more likely to have a higher education, much more likely to be satisfied with their lives, more likely to have a happy marriage, more likely to stay married, much more likely to have a much higher intelligence, more likely to contribute to their society in positive and charitable ways, more likely to be left-handed, more likely to win the Nobel Prize, more likely to win swimsuit contests than their religious counterparts, and so on and so forth. And nonreligious people achieve all of this despite being oppressed by religious tyrants everywhere in the world.

That’s the benefit of controlling one’s own mind instead of being religious.

grey_the_angel

  • Alternate Primary Member
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1172
  • CC:ALSAT project leader/sole member >.>
    • View Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2006, 10:55:25 am »
then ban me. I am different then you. I don't care about other people hearts minds or ablities. I stopped caring a long time ago. I learned this a while ago: "giving a damn about what other people think or do only bring their probelms into your lives."

If I'm truly a probelm, if I'm truly annoying you, then ban me. It's not like i'm going to give a fuck.

but you know what: you proved me right about athiest religions backstabbing when you assumed I'm chirstian.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2006, 11:47:42 am »
athesis, from what I've learned over the years, tend to be the first ones to brake back into a religion when something goes bad and point out the religion as fault.

And you may support that bogus claim at your convenience...

Aw, come on. I know you meant to say,

You may test that assumption at your convenience.

Quote from: ChibiBob
Hell, my "instinctual" faith, as you refer to it, is the fervent belief in myself.



The winner!
« Last Edit: August 26, 2006, 11:51:30 am by ZeaLitY »

Lena Andreia

  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • Radical Dreamer
    • View Profile
    • Chrono Ark Forums
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2006, 12:14:57 pm »
 Wow, Lord J--that was an novel.

 I think it's a better idea if everyone sort of avoid the religion debate on forums like this. Everyone has their own opinions, and as we can see, they clash rather violently at times. No one has any right to tell someone else that their beliefs are inherently wrong--if Gray believes in miraculous healing through prayer, than that's what he believes. If Lord J believes that it's all bunk, then that's what he believes. No amount of web links or arguing will change those beliefs, as those involved are going into battle with an outcome already on their mind. On the token of prayer as a pain reliever and curer of disease, I will say this--there are medical studies on the negative effects stress can have on you, so if prayer is a stress reliever to someone, then yes, it would probably be beneficial. But on the same token, other things can probably fill the same void--classical music for the music lover, television, and, in my case (I'm a survivor of a childhood disease myself), Nintendo.

 Personally, I do think the world would be more peaceful without "organized" religion. Sure, I do believe in God, but I don't believe He would want His people blowing each other up over stupid disagreements. Our world has lost a lot of valuable cultures in the name of "relgion"--hell--practically all of civilization in the western hemisphere was wiped out over the last millenium thanks to it. That doesn't mean I don't think that people should have faith, but I just think that it should be more of a private affair. And it definitely has no place in government issues. It still burns my buns that our politicians use it as a bargaining chip.

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2006, 05:27:32 pm »
Wow, Lord J--that was an novel.

 I think it's a better idea if everyone sort of avoid the religion debate on forums like this. Everyone has their own opinions, and as we can see, they clash rather violently at times. No one has any right to tell someone else that their beliefs are inherently wrong--if Gray believes in miraculous healing through prayer, than that's what he believes. If Lord J believes that it's all bunk, then that's what he believes. No amount of web links or arguing will change those beliefs, as those involved are going into battle with an outcome already on their mind. On the token of prayer as a pain reliever and curer of disease, I will say this--there are medical studies on the negative effects stress can have on you, so if prayer is a stress reliever to someone, then yes, it would probably be beneficial. But on the same token, other things can probably fill the same void--classical music for the music lover, television, and, in my case (I'm a survivor of a childhood disease myself), Nintendo.

 Personally, I do think the world would be more peaceful without "organized" religion. Sure, I do believe in God, but I don't believe He would want His people blowing each other up over stupid disagreements. Our world has lost a lot of valuable cultures in the name of "relgion"--hell--practically all of civilization in the western hemisphere was wiped out over the last millenium thanks to it. That doesn't mean I don't think that people should have faith, but I just think that it should be more of a private affair. And it definitely has no place in government issues. It still burns my buns that our politicians use it as a bargaining chip.

Read some Socrates. Not only do you have the right to tell someone their beliefs are wrong if they are wrong, it is just for you to do so. All opinions are not equally valid. If it was my opinion that the sky was purple and that the moon was made of cheese, I'd be a fool, and you'd be doing a good deed to show me the error of my beliefs.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2006, 09:39:37 pm »
then ban me. I am different then you. I don't care about other people hearts minds or ablities. I stopped caring a long time ago. I learned this a while ago: "giving a damn about what other people think or do only bring their probelms into your lives."

If I'm truly a probelm, if I'm truly annoying you, then ban me. It's not like i'm going to give a fuck.

but you know what: you proved me right about athiest religions backstabbing when you assumed I'm chirstian.

I'm not going to ban anybody. I was pointing out the irony of pushing a button versus changing a mind...the former so easy, the latter so useful. If I were going to ban someone, it'd be ZeaLitY. Muah ha hah! Then I would consolidate my power and rule the Compendium with an iron fist!

If I mistook you for a Christian, Grey, it is only because your fallacious tactics and incoherent grasp of English are straight out of their playbook. Maybe it's time to start broadening the definition of "Christian" to mean anybody whose intellectual currency is faith-based idiocy.


No one has any right to tell someone else that their beliefs are inherently wrong--if Gray believes in miraculous healing through prayer, than that's what he believes. If Lord J believes that it's all bunk, then that's what he believes. No amount of web links or arguing will change those beliefs, as those involved are going into battle with an outcome already on their mind.

Most of the rest of your post is fine, but not this part. As Radical_Dreamer already began to point out, this prohibition you claim prevents us from showing other people their beliefs are wrong, does not exist. There is a higher authority out there that we call the truth--not religious truth, but physical truth. When people are wrong in their beliefs, and their wrongness becomes a detriment to others, not only do we have the right to tell them they're wrong, but we probably should.

I like to point out that "beliefs" are not something that I rely upon in argument. Grey may have his beliefs, but I have an understanding of the real world. I don't need to believe the things that are so easy to simply know. Beliefs are the stuff of faith; critical judgments are the thinking person's knowledge framework. As such, in this case, I don't "believe" that prayer is bunk...I recognize that it is almost certainly bunk, because there is no scientific support for it, and those who do uphold the premise almost always have a stake in the outcome that jades their credibility.

The battle for hearts and minds rarely ends on the battlefield itself. Intelligence and logical consistency ultimately do have an impression on people. What we achieve today will carry on into the future, and the future is where any real impacts will be felt. Even Grey himself may someday come to recognize the ignorance of his ways.

Personally, I do think the world would be more peaceful without "organized" religion. Sure, I do believe in God...

Why do you believe in "God," with a capital G no less, if you don't believe in any religion? What is your basis for believing in God, if you can rely upon neither scientific evidence nor doctrinal assertion? Do you believe in God simply because you want there to be such a creature, or because you've been raised in a society where it goes without saying that God exists, and you've never gotten around to really thinking about that?

Rat

  • Alternate Primary Member
  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Impersonal Text
    • View Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2006, 09:43:23 pm »

Read some Socrates. Not only do you have the right to tell someone their beliefs are wrong if they are wrong, it is just for you to do so. All opinions are not equally valid. If it was my opinion that the sky was purple and that the moon was made of cheese, I'd be a fool, and you'd be doing a good deed to show me the error of my beliefs.

The problem being that you can prove to a person that the sky is not purple and the moon is not made of cheese, but it is difficult to prove with any absoluteness that there is or isn't a God, seeing as religion hinges on faith than any actual physical proof, first and foremost (although some people are convinced by what "physical proof" does exist, reaffirming their beliefs).
So then, would it be one's job, working to do what is just, to convince someone of faith that they are wrong and that God, or any other deity for that matter, does not exist?
For Socrates, I suppose it would be right to question them on such matters to get them to think more deeply on their faith instead of taking things as they are told, but I'm not entirely too sure he would advocate "correcting" a person's faith.


Personally, I do think the world would be more peaceful without "organized" religion. Sure, I do believe in God...

Why do you believe in "God," with a capital G no less, if you don't believe in any religion? What is your basis for believing in God, if you can rely upon neither scientific evidence nor doctrinal assertion? Do you believe in God simply because you want there to be such a creature, or because you've been raised in a society where it goes without saying that God exists, and you've never gotten around to really thinking about that?

I don't think she said specifically that she does not believe in a religion, simply that organized religion seems to be the source of many conflicts, and then went on to express her beliefs of what people do do in the name of God that she does not think God ever intended.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2006, 09:59:14 pm by Rat »

Silvercry

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
    • The Great Silvercry's Blog
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2006, 10:02:06 pm »
Every forum needs a Lord J.  I rarely, if ever, agree with anything you say, but your posts are always an informative, thought-provoking (and occasionally entraining) read.

Although I must ask:  It is your opinion then, that it is impossible to be a person of faith (the type of the faith in question is irrelevant), and also a man of science?  Can an individual live in accordance with the tenets/practices of their particular religion, and yet still deal with reality?  And if so, what is the harm in allowing them to do so?

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2006, 11:05:16 pm »
Does faith in oneself apply? I have faith (bound by limits of common sense and reason) that I can accomplish something if I devote every ounce of my being and love to it. It may be irrational in some cases, and some tasks may be summarily impossible. But it draws on my philosophy of 200%. In certain areas, the mind is conditioned to believe that performing under maximum capacity is actually doing one's best. As a result, I believe the concept of going "beyond 100%" can actually help, though it is impossible mathematically. It is the basic idea of going beyond the beyond. It is so easy for the mind to wall itself up or define limits during an endeavor. Exercise is a simple example; there are certain times when your body is about to go and you know it, and there are certain times where you are just tired and lack motivation. You will rationalize that you are doing your best, and that you're just tired. But you can truly go further. The philosophy of 200% is maintaining optimism and belief in oneself to the point that one tries to break perceived limitations. Motivation can come from anywhere -- imagine someone will shoot you if you don't reach a mile, or that you will fail a class if you do not do a paper a month before it is due. It is not total self-deception, but it helps reach that overall concept of reaching as far as possible.

And the penultimate sentence reminds me of Guy's trick. Guy is Rock Lee's mentor, and one of his personal rules proves amazing and effective training for the self-will. I have to refresh myself on the episode, but the gist is, "challenge yourself in everything." Have two papers to do before December? Do them now. Had to meet someone but were late? Do push-ups or clean up your house. This self-rule is a tremendous source of empowerment, and also evaporates work before your eyes. I love the evaporation of work and the completion of long-term projects, as the excited sense of "whoa, what's next!?" is invigorating and sparks creation. For this reason, I try to not ration out work on certain long-term projects over extended periods, but designate long hours after the project's creation to hammer that sucker out. I cannot rest when I have projects grating on my mind; my nature is to finish them. I also believe this is a correct doctrine in writing. As long term projects stem from original inspiration, it is advantageous to write like holy hell to ride on the crest of that inspiration. Time eases all things, and dilutes certain ideas. Get it out. Be a ruthless taskmaster. Be a constructive powerhouse. Live like you mean it.

That is the way and passion of youth. You do not know your true ability until you unleash every force of your will upon the world. Yes, yes, I shall write a motivational book. And these will all be chapters.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2006, 11:09:19 pm by ZeaLitY »

ChibiBob

  • Guest
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2006, 11:08:53 pm »
Athiest also have higher death rates, by the way.

There also more likely to do drugs, develop alcoholism, and get arrested.

I'm sorry, but that has got to be the funniest thing I've read in ages. I always thought Catholics were the ones with higher death rates, drug addiction problems, alcoholism, and The Tale of Genji-long arrest records -- well, at least according to a study of my extended family, anyway.

Although I must ask:  It is your opinion then, that it is impossible to be a person of faith (the type of the faith in question is irrelevant), and also a man of science?  Can an individual live in accordance with the tenets/practices of their particular religion, and yet still deal with reality?  And if so, what is the harm in allowing them to do so?

-puts Lord J wig on.-

That's a dilemma that's been around ever since the Scientific Revolution. Should religions remain tough on their core beliefs and disregard modern scientific advances, or should religions embrace these latest epiphanies and develop faith-based reasons for their existence to coincide with what they've already explained? Honestly, it depends on the individual and the religion in question. I'm sure there are religious people out there who can learn to accept the fact that certain questions are simply unable to be answered by their beliefs yet, being a part of reality, should nevertheless be explored to their fullest potential. Then again, there's always the radical religious who denounce any form of medicine, whether primitive or modern, and rely solely on prayer to cure their ailments.

Either way, as long as some form of religion exists in the world, there's bound to be those who simply cannot accept the joint existance of reality and the world as viewed by religion alone. However, I do believe there are those who can integrate both concepts into their lives with very little conflict, and I toast them. There's no harm at all in allowing for religions that can adapt to the modern world; in fact, they're usually a benefit to society, giving those who feel the need to believe in a god some semblance of order in their lives and thus a more stable society for all (not including, of course, the religious fanatics who feel the need to make life shitty for everyone else -- see literal interpretators of holy books with bombs strapped to their balls and Bible salesmen).

...
Geez, Lord J. You act like you're donating your job to the new blood, and yet you type out a veritable encyclopedia. I'll be in a corner wallowing in insecurity and brain-envy now -- that, and hiding from Rock Lee, who seems to enjoy pointing me out lately. (I expect the showering of flowers, expensive jewelry and marriage proposals to commence any time now, Lee. I am not a cheap date. :d)

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2006, 11:11:14 pm »
High maintenance, eh? Rock Lee has the power of double overtime in his motivational arsenal. Money will rain from the heavens!  CHRONO TRIGGER REFERENCE 301951

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2006, 11:18:18 pm »
Quote
more likely to be left-handed, more likely to win swimsuit contests than their religious counterparts, and so on and so forth.
The most informative post on the Compendium yet.

Ironic, though, that Lord J wants a better world, without hatred and discrimination, and yet to achieve these ways you insult Christians, and think it would be a better world without them. So, if in your world, one that you controlled, people were to become Christian again, what would you do? Get rid of them, and be no different from the "evil" rulers before you?

Exodus

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 506
  • How do we know we exist?
    • View Profile
Faith-Based Topic
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2006, 02:17:19 am »
Quote
more likely to be left-handed, more likely to win swimsuit contests than their religious counterparts, and so on and so forth.
The most informative post on the Compendium yet.

Ironic, though, that Lord J wants a better world, without hatred and discrimination, and yet to achieve these ways you insult Christians, and think it would be a better world without them. So, if in your world, one that you controlled, people were to become Christian again, what would you do? Get rid of them, and be no different from the "evil" rulers before you?

Constrain their power over the people. It's pretty simple.

The idea behind it is to TRULY remove religious influence from government.