Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
Is that not how the UN is set up. In the security council all the permanent members must agree or no action can be taken. Thus of course, those of opposing points of view, ie, communists vs democrats will seldom agree and thus it has no teeth.
Then you have the likes of the US who refuses to pay its share just because they disagree with some issue. That is kind of like "If we don't play the game my way I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home." I think they should be looking for consensus rather than unanimity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
My point was more, when one member of the Security Council, as well as using its veto to stop the UN doing something, also overrides the veto of the other members by acting unilaterally without fear of retribution, then the set-up fails.
What's wrong with religion?
What's wrong with religion?
Bryn Mawr:-6
According to Shrubby they are the innocent non combatants who simply try to get out of the way which is kind of difficult during "shock and awe".
Shalom
Ted:-6
According to Shrubby they are the innocent non combatants who simply try to get out of the way which is kind of difficult during "shock and awe".
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Galbally wrote: I see that you have managed to get away from "what is wrong with religion" to "what is wrong with the UN", interesting, maybe they are linked as I think both problems are related to human diversity, and the facts of human diversity. As well as the way the U.N. is set up, it is pretty sidelined at the minute, but thats the fault of the larger states as they as always have their own plans, that said the smaller countries don't cover themselves in glory either a lot of the time, well at least their is some form of international law in the world, its better than no law anyway in my opinion.
Oops, sorry :yh_blush
As for the rest of it - right as usual.
Oops, sorry :yh_blush
As for the rest of it - right as usual.
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: K.Snyder:-6
Those are the combatants not the civilians who like Americans and Canadians just want to get on with life and be as happy as they can.
The other point is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Menachem Begin is a good example. To the Palestinian he was a terrorist and to the Jewish folks he was a freedom fighter. It all depends on where the observer is standing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
This is rather contradicting considering your saying that the civilians are different than that of the combatants, which means the combatants are not supported by the majority of that civilization, to add to the fact that the Iraqi government has already surrendered. We're talking about individual lunatics, not an army. So the whole "terrorist/freedom fighter" bit doesn't hold ground as far as my opinion is concerned.
Those are the combatants not the civilians who like Americans and Canadians just want to get on with life and be as happy as they can.
The other point is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Menachem Begin is a good example. To the Palestinian he was a terrorist and to the Jewish folks he was a freedom fighter. It all depends on where the observer is standing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
This is rather contradicting considering your saying that the civilians are different than that of the combatants, which means the combatants are not supported by the majority of that civilization, to add to the fact that the Iraqi government has already surrendered. We're talking about individual lunatics, not an army. So the whole "terrorist/freedom fighter" bit doesn't hold ground as far as my opinion is concerned.
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
According to Shrubby they are the innocent non combatants who simply try to get out of the way which is kind of difficult during "shock and awe".
Shalom
Ted:-6
More than a little bit.
And how does the definition of Shock and Awe differ from the definition of Terrorise?
And how does the effect of Shock and Awe differ from the effect of the Blitzkrieg?
According to Shrubby they are the innocent non combatants who simply try to get out of the way which is kind of difficult during "shock and awe".
Shalom
Ted:-6
More than a little bit.
And how does the definition of Shock and Awe differ from the definition of Terrorise?
And how does the effect of Shock and Awe differ from the effect of the Blitzkrieg?
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder:-6
That figure came from your president who happened to agree they were the innocent folks.
As to who is or is not a terrorist or a combatant. Where would you be in the event of another attack, running and hiding or picking up your weapon. If you picked up your weapon would you be an innocent civilian who is defending both himself and his country or a terrorist and or a combatant.
Like I said it depends on from where you are making the observation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That figure came from your president who happened to agree they were the innocent folks.
As to who is or is not a terrorist or a combatant. Where would you be in the event of another attack, running and hiding or picking up your weapon. If you picked up your weapon would you be an innocent civilian who is defending both himself and his country or a terrorist and or a combatant.
Like I said it depends on from where you are making the observation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder wrote: This is rather contradicting considering your saying that the civilians are different than that of the combatants, which means the combatants are not supported by the majority of that civilization, to add to the fact that the Iraqi government has already surrendered. We're talking about individual lunatics, not an army. So the whole "terrorist/freedom fighter" bit doesn't hold ground as far as my opinion is concerned.
If this is true then why are we fighting them with our army?
If it is individual lunatics then it is a criminal matter, not millitary.
What makes you think that the combatants *are* supported by the majority of the civilians.
If they are then what are we doing there?
If this is true then why are we fighting them with our army?
If it is individual lunatics then it is a criminal matter, not millitary.
What makes you think that the combatants *are* supported by the majority of the civilians.
If they are then what are we doing there?
What's wrong with religion?
I don't exactly know why we're in Iraq...but to me, considering the poor living conditions of the Iraqi people when Saddam Hussein was in power, I don't see how Allied intervention over there could make that country in worse than it was. If the Iraqi government can learn to defend itself then I see the Iraqi government steadily taking over the situation and transforming the problem into more of a police action, which is the only thing that's going to come good out of the War over there. Obviously with a stable economy as well, but that goes without saying.
I wasn't the one to give the go ahead to move into Iraq, and I couldn't say what I would have done given that sort of power, because like alot of people Washington likes to set it's own agenda with minimal public knowledge the way I see it. Obviously we all know about the WMD fiasco so it's a waist of time to keep beating down that bush, but considering the present circumstances one has to form an opinion based on what needs to be done now, and not ask questions of why, because its simply irreversible.
I wasn't the one to give the go ahead to move into Iraq, and I couldn't say what I would have done given that sort of power, because like alot of people Washington likes to set it's own agenda with minimal public knowledge the way I see it. Obviously we all know about the WMD fiasco so it's a waist of time to keep beating down that bush, but considering the present circumstances one has to form an opinion based on what needs to be done now, and not ask questions of why, because its simply irreversible.
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder wrote: I don't exactly know why we're in Iraq...but to me, considering the poor living conditions of the Iraqi people when Saddam Hussein was in power, I don't see how Allied intervention over there could make that country in worse than it was. If the Iraqi government can learn to defend itself then I see the Iraqi government steadily taking over the situation and transforming the problem into more of a police action, which is the only thing that's going to come good out of the War over there. Obviously with a stable economy as well, but that goes without saying.
I wasn't the one to give the go ahead to move into Iraq, and I couldn't say what I would have done given that sort of power, because like alot of people Washington likes to set it's own agenda with minimal public knowledge the way I see it. Obviously we all know about the WMD fiasco so it's a waist of time to keep beating down that bush, but considering the present circumstances one has to form an opinion based on what needs to be done now, and not ask questions of why, because its simply irreversible.
Ask the 639,000 wether they're better off than they were.
And as to it being irreversable - if we don't learn from the ****-ups we make then what's the use - we *must* ask why!
I wasn't the one to give the go ahead to move into Iraq, and I couldn't say what I would have done given that sort of power, because like alot of people Washington likes to set it's own agenda with minimal public knowledge the way I see it. Obviously we all know about the WMD fiasco so it's a waist of time to keep beating down that bush, but considering the present circumstances one has to form an opinion based on what needs to be done now, and not ask questions of why, because its simply irreversible.
Ask the 639,000 wether they're better off than they were.
And as to it being irreversable - if we don't learn from the ****-ups we make then what's the use - we *must* ask why!
What's wrong with religion?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Ask the 639,000 wether they're better off than they were.
And as to it being irreversable - if we don't learn from the ****-ups we make then what's the use - we *must* ask why!
You're saying that out of those 639,000 people, not one fired upon allied forces and we're simply mass murdered in cold blood then?
And as to it being irreversable - if we don't learn from the ****-ups we make then what's the use - we *must* ask why!
You're saying that out of those 639,000 people, not one fired upon allied forces and we're simply mass murdered in cold blood then?
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder wrote: You're saying that out of those 639,000 people, not one fired upon allied forces and we're simply mass murdered in cold blood then?
and if 1 did then it's OK?
If 20,001 out of 659,000 were active combattants then we were right?
Where do you wish to draw the line?
and if 1 did then it's OK?
If 20,001 out of 659,000 were active combattants then we were right?
Where do you wish to draw the line?
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: gmc:-6
I don't take any of it personally.
What category? Reread your list or go to your third last paragraph in the current one.
Re specialization. I personally prefer someone trained in the appropriate field. Perhaps you would just prefer to o to a neighbour, who is a common labourer, for medical advice. Nothing wrong with a labourer who is probably good in his field.
Your view of teachers or for that matter professionals I won't bother commenting on.
Most teachers, those certified, are more then well screened and as in any profession the odd incompetent one gets through; even in the field of medicine.
As far as religion goes one can choose to be a follower or a leader; a thinker or a non thinker. That is free choice.
An Imam is at least qualified to comment and talk about Islam but not Christianity any more than Russell was.
The King James Version--here again you are speaking about things you don't know. It is well known there are some 20 000 errors in translation. Some people still prefer it and that is their choice but many choose much better translations.
I fail to see that a gay Scotsman has anthing to do with the issue. Perhaps a red herring.
We do need more free thinkers in the world but hopefully they learn some current facts on topic about which they are pontificating.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What category? Reread your list or go to your third last paragraph in the current one.
Nope, still don't see what you are on about.
Re specialization. I personally prefer someone trained in the appropriate field. Perhaps you would just prefer to o to a neighbour, who is a common labourer, for medical advice. Nothing wrong with a labourer who is probably good in his field.
That labourer should he go to a doctor can ask and expect the doctor to explain the treatment and the reasons behind it. the treatment suggested has been subject to previous research and the efficacy or oherwise can be proven. He might accept the doctor has greater knowledge but it is still his prerogative to question.
Same with any scientific theory, it is open to peer review and discussion and anything put forward can be tested.
religon on the other hand is the only area where people are taken as being an "authority" and the word is not to be questioned.
We do need more free thinkers in the world but hopefully they learn some current facts on topic about which they are pontificating.
Oh very good, freethinkers don't pontificate they leave that up to the pope and other religious leaders, most notably the pope (also known as the pontif) who is also supposed to be infallible.
A freethinker is one who, amongst other things, refuses to accept such a ludicrous belief.
The King James Version--here again you are speaking about things you don't know. It is well known there are some 20 000 errors in translation. Some people still prefer it and that is their choice but many choose much better translations.
Why do you assume I don't know that?
Most of the gay hating bible thumpers that I have met tend to like the archaic language of the king James version. The irony of it's sponsor being gay is usually lost on them just as you didn't get it either. It was an attempt at humour but I won't waste my time in future.
posted by ted
As far as religion goes one can choose to be a follower or a leader; a thinker or a non thinker. That is free choice.
An Imam is at least qualified to comment and talk about Islam but not Christianity any more than Russell was.
That perhaps sums up what is wrong with religon-or perhap some of it's adherents.
Either follow blindly without questioning, or become a priest so long as it is the right religon, or think for yourself and be accused of not being able to think by those that like to be told what to believe.
I don't take any of it personally.
What category? Reread your list or go to your third last paragraph in the current one.
Re specialization. I personally prefer someone trained in the appropriate field. Perhaps you would just prefer to o to a neighbour, who is a common labourer, for medical advice. Nothing wrong with a labourer who is probably good in his field.
Your view of teachers or for that matter professionals I won't bother commenting on.
Most teachers, those certified, are more then well screened and as in any profession the odd incompetent one gets through; even in the field of medicine.
As far as religion goes one can choose to be a follower or a leader; a thinker or a non thinker. That is free choice.
An Imam is at least qualified to comment and talk about Islam but not Christianity any more than Russell was.
The King James Version--here again you are speaking about things you don't know. It is well known there are some 20 000 errors in translation. Some people still prefer it and that is their choice but many choose much better translations.
I fail to see that a gay Scotsman has anthing to do with the issue. Perhaps a red herring.
We do need more free thinkers in the world but hopefully they learn some current facts on topic about which they are pontificating.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What category? Reread your list or go to your third last paragraph in the current one.
Nope, still don't see what you are on about.
Re specialization. I personally prefer someone trained in the appropriate field. Perhaps you would just prefer to o to a neighbour, who is a common labourer, for medical advice. Nothing wrong with a labourer who is probably good in his field.
That labourer should he go to a doctor can ask and expect the doctor to explain the treatment and the reasons behind it. the treatment suggested has been subject to previous research and the efficacy or oherwise can be proven. He might accept the doctor has greater knowledge but it is still his prerogative to question.
Same with any scientific theory, it is open to peer review and discussion and anything put forward can be tested.
religon on the other hand is the only area where people are taken as being an "authority" and the word is not to be questioned.
We do need more free thinkers in the world but hopefully they learn some current facts on topic about which they are pontificating.
Oh very good, freethinkers don't pontificate they leave that up to the pope and other religious leaders, most notably the pope (also known as the pontif) who is also supposed to be infallible.
A freethinker is one who, amongst other things, refuses to accept such a ludicrous belief.
The King James Version--here again you are speaking about things you don't know. It is well known there are some 20 000 errors in translation. Some people still prefer it and that is their choice but many choose much better translations.
Why do you assume I don't know that?
Most of the gay hating bible thumpers that I have met tend to like the archaic language of the king James version. The irony of it's sponsor being gay is usually lost on them just as you didn't get it either. It was an attempt at humour but I won't waste my time in future.
posted by ted
As far as religion goes one can choose to be a follower or a leader; a thinker or a non thinker. That is free choice.
An Imam is at least qualified to comment and talk about Islam but not Christianity any more than Russell was.
That perhaps sums up what is wrong with religon-or perhap some of it's adherents.
Either follow blindly without questioning, or become a priest so long as it is the right religon, or think for yourself and be accused of not being able to think by those that like to be told what to believe.
What's wrong with religion?
gmc:-6
Of course anyone can question the Dr. They can even choose to ignore him/her but then I wonder why they bother consulting the Dr.
Ten different doctors can see the same patient and the same set of data and come up with ten different diagnoses. This is not new. People often talk about getting a second or third opinion. Ten may be an exageration but I've known folks who have gotten 4 different diagnoses from four different doctors.
Of course things can be tested in science and they are. Science looks for the best possible solution to a particular issue based on the data and knowledge they have. As the data and knowledge change or develop they then change their best possible answer to another one and then another one and so on. Those who came up with the original solution had faith that it was the correct one. Then they later have to change their faith. All we have to do is look at the changes to science brought about by Einstein and now with the advent of quantum physics some of what Einstein said is being questioned.
The idea that the universe will eventually slow its expansion down and reverse to ultimately cause another big bang was the scientific gospel for years. That was ismply a matter of faith. Now it would appear that this is being seriously questioned. So here we go again. We may soon have a better explanation until we get further information that will change it again.
"The word is not to be questioned." I refer back to your category. This is simply not true of all churches or faiths.
Free thinkers don't pontificate? Of course they do. Look at Russell. He was adamant about his stand and delivered that message forcefully. I've seen interviews with him. He was indeed pontificating.
Your comments re the King James Version being the "literal word of God" is simply not born out in reality. Not all Christians accept that point of view. Once again I refer you back to your "category".
Something might be wrong with some adherents. Hey, we can agree at least on one thing.
"Either follow blindly . . ." is another statement that is not born our in reality. Once again this is a statement that is not true of all in any faith. There are many questioners. He again I refer you back to your "category".
So lets deal with that category: all Christians (to choose one group) are not free thinkers, follow blindly without questioning, take the Bible to be the literal, inerrant word of God is simply an untrue blanket statement that does not reflect reality. I know for a fact that it does not reflect reality in the Muslim faith as well.
The God that you don't believe in is the same one I don't believe in. The only different is that I don't criticize the atheist for his position but many seem to think they need to be very adamant that those who do have a religious faith are somehow misguided or stupid or lack intelligence or lack the ability to think for themselves. If someone chooses to be an atheist that is their business and not mine. Nor is it mine to critize accept when such atheists make blanket statements that are patently untrue.
Shalom
Ted
Of course anyone can question the Dr. They can even choose to ignore him/her but then I wonder why they bother consulting the Dr.
Ten different doctors can see the same patient and the same set of data and come up with ten different diagnoses. This is not new. People often talk about getting a second or third opinion. Ten may be an exageration but I've known folks who have gotten 4 different diagnoses from four different doctors.
Of course things can be tested in science and they are. Science looks for the best possible solution to a particular issue based on the data and knowledge they have. As the data and knowledge change or develop they then change their best possible answer to another one and then another one and so on. Those who came up with the original solution had faith that it was the correct one. Then they later have to change their faith. All we have to do is look at the changes to science brought about by Einstein and now with the advent of quantum physics some of what Einstein said is being questioned.
The idea that the universe will eventually slow its expansion down and reverse to ultimately cause another big bang was the scientific gospel for years. That was ismply a matter of faith. Now it would appear that this is being seriously questioned. So here we go again. We may soon have a better explanation until we get further information that will change it again.
"The word is not to be questioned." I refer back to your category. This is simply not true of all churches or faiths.
Free thinkers don't pontificate? Of course they do. Look at Russell. He was adamant about his stand and delivered that message forcefully. I've seen interviews with him. He was indeed pontificating.
Your comments re the King James Version being the "literal word of God" is simply not born out in reality. Not all Christians accept that point of view. Once again I refer you back to your "category".
Something might be wrong with some adherents. Hey, we can agree at least on one thing.
"Either follow blindly . . ." is another statement that is not born our in reality. Once again this is a statement that is not true of all in any faith. There are many questioners. He again I refer you back to your "category".
So lets deal with that category: all Christians (to choose one group) are not free thinkers, follow blindly without questioning, take the Bible to be the literal, inerrant word of God is simply an untrue blanket statement that does not reflect reality. I know for a fact that it does not reflect reality in the Muslim faith as well.
The God that you don't believe in is the same one I don't believe in. The only different is that I don't criticize the atheist for his position but many seem to think they need to be very adamant that those who do have a religious faith are somehow misguided or stupid or lack intelligence or lack the ability to think for themselves. If someone chooses to be an atheist that is their business and not mine. Nor is it mine to critize accept when such atheists make blanket statements that are patently untrue.
Shalom
Ted
What's wrong with religion?
Bryn Mawr wrote: and if 1 did then it's OK?
If 20,001 out of 659,000 were active combattants then we were right?
I know if I were being shot at, I wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep for neutralizing the situation.
If one did, then it would have been justified to kill that one.
If 20,001 did, then it would be justified to have killed them, in my view.
They're are people out in the streets who don't shoot at the allied forces, and they will eventually begin to live a better life, if they haven't already.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Where do you wish to draw the line?
Ask the insurgence that, and upon their answer I could give you an answer pertaining to that question myself. Until then, one being shot at has the right to defend themselves. (my opinion)
If 20,001 out of 659,000 were active combattants then we were right?
I know if I were being shot at, I wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep for neutralizing the situation.
If one did, then it would have been justified to kill that one.
If 20,001 did, then it would be justified to have killed them, in my view.
They're are people out in the streets who don't shoot at the allied forces, and they will eventually begin to live a better life, if they haven't already.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Where do you wish to draw the line?
Ask the insurgence that, and upon their answer I could give you an answer pertaining to that question myself. Until then, one being shot at has the right to defend themselves. (my opinion)
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder:-6
I have absolutely no problem with one defending oneself or one's country for that matter. I think those are necessary actions.
I have no question with another nation sending in some forces to defend and protect a people living under a terrorist leader as Saddam was or as the Taliban were. I do have concern when those soldiers begin raping and killing innocent folks or torturing others even if they are combatants. Such torture makes the outside force no better than the terrorists.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have absolutely no problem with one defending oneself or one's country for that matter. I think those are necessary actions.
I have no question with another nation sending in some forces to defend and protect a people living under a terrorist leader as Saddam was or as the Taliban were. I do have concern when those soldiers begin raping and killing innocent folks or torturing others even if they are combatants. Such torture makes the outside force no better than the terrorists.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: K.Snyder:-6
I have absolutely no problem with one defending oneself or one's country for that matter. I think those are necessary actions.
I have no question with another nation sending in some forces to defend and protect a people living under a terrorist leader as Saddam was or as the Taliban were. I do have concern when those soldiers begin raping and killing innocent folks or torturing others even if they are combatants. Such torture makes the outside force no better than the terrorists.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Uh...I agree...but you make it sound as if these are the virtues held by every soldier over there....No one can stop people from making bad choices, that's up to their parents when in the stages of their childhood, but I hardly think of the soldiers over there all being rapists and murderers...if you did, then you are seriously cynical.
I have absolutely no problem with one defending oneself or one's country for that matter. I think those are necessary actions.
I have no question with another nation sending in some forces to defend and protect a people living under a terrorist leader as Saddam was or as the Taliban were. I do have concern when those soldiers begin raping and killing innocent folks or torturing others even if they are combatants. Such torture makes the outside force no better than the terrorists.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Uh...I agree...but you make it sound as if these are the virtues held by every soldier over there....No one can stop people from making bad choices, that's up to their parents when in the stages of their childhood, but I hardly think of the soldiers over there all being rapists and murderers...if you did, then you are seriously cynical.
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder:-6
Actually I think such behaviour is only among a few. Most I suspect are decent men and women who have a job to do and do it as effectively as possible. Parents, of course, are not in the least responsible for their adult children's behaviour.
The Canadian military has had similar problems in the past and once again only among a small minority of soldiers.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually I think such behaviour is only among a few. Most I suspect are decent men and women who have a job to do and do it as effectively as possible. Parents, of course, are not in the least responsible for their adult children's behaviour.
The Canadian military has had similar problems in the past and once again only among a small minority of soldiers.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
What's wrong with religion?
koan wrote: In this poll it is decidedly voted by FG members that religion has failed to make the world a better place.
Why?
What are some potential explanations? What are some proposed solutions?
Koan.......there are so many religions to embrace in this world.................The several billion in China is enough for me to doubt Christianity in this world.
How can anyone claim a messaih!!! Do you feel forgiven?
If there was a god who forgive......he would be here by now...
Why?
What are some potential explanations? What are some proposed solutions?
Koan.......there are so many religions to embrace in this world.................The several billion in China is enough for me to doubt Christianity in this world.
How can anyone claim a messaih!!! Do you feel forgiven?
If there was a god who forgive......he would be here by now...
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
What's wrong with religion?
Hmm.
:-3
:-3
What's wrong with religion?
nvalleyvee wrote: Koan.......there are so many religions to embrace in this world.................The several billion in China is enough for me to doubt Christianity in this world.
How can anyone claim a messaih!!! Do you feel forgiven?
If there was a god who forgive......he would be here by now...
Looks like you showed up late for dinner again.
Dear God (XTC)
, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you....
How can anyone claim a messaih!!! Do you feel forgiven?
If there was a god who forgive......he would be here by now...
Looks like you showed up late for dinner again.
Dear God (XTC)
, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you....
What's wrong with religion?
koan wrote: Looks like you showed up late for dinner again.
Dear God (XTC)
, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you....
Without free will you have no faith, you have no life, you have no choices. Without free will you have no consequences, which means you have no end, which also means you have no beginning. Would you prefer that everyone lives by having nothing they can call their own? Without it you have nothing. There has to be heart ache, without it you have no love, you have nothing. Nothing but unconsciousness, which means no perception. Without it there's nothing. (my philosophy)
Dear God (XTC)
, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you....
Without free will you have no faith, you have no life, you have no choices. Without free will you have no consequences, which means you have no end, which also means you have no beginning. Would you prefer that everyone lives by having nothing they can call their own? Without it you have nothing. There has to be heart ache, without it you have no love, you have nothing. Nothing but unconsciousness, which means no perception. Without it there's nothing. (my philosophy)
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder wrote: Would you prefer that everyone lives by having nothing they can call their own?
Sure. That might be fun to try. I'll consider anything at this point.
Sure. That might be fun to try. I'll consider anything at this point.
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder wrote: Without free will you have no faith, you have no life, you have no choices. Without free will you have no consequences, which means you have no end, which also means you have no beginning. ...Without it you have nothing. There has to be heart ache, without it you have no love, you have nothing. Nothing but unconsciousness, which means no perception. Without it there's nothing. (my philosophy)
1,2
heart, soul
I ain't got no home, ain't got no shoes
Ain't got no money, Ain't got no clothes
Ain't got no perfume, Ain't got no skirts
Ain't got no sweaters, Ain't got no smokes
Ain't got no god.
Ain't got no father, Ain't got no mother
Ain't got no sisters, i've got one brother
Ain't got no land, Ain't got no country
Ain't got no freedom, Ain't got no god,
Ain't got no mind,
Ain't got no earth, Ain't got no students
Ain't got no father, Ain't got no mother
Ain't got no sweets, Ain't got no ticket
Ain't got no token, Ain't got no mind
Ain't got no land.
But there is something i've got,
there is something i've got,
there is something i've got,
nobody can take it away...
Got my hair on my head
Got my brains, Got my ears
Got my eyes, Got my nose
Got my mouth, I got my smile
I got my tongue, Got my chin
Got my neck, Got my boobies
Got my heart, Got my soul
Got my back, I got my sex
1,2
heart, soul
I ain't got no home, ain't got no shoes
Ain't got no money, Ain't got no clothes
Ain't got no perfume, Ain't got no skirts
Ain't got no sweaters, Ain't got no smokes
Ain't got no god.
Ain't got no father, Ain't got no mother
Ain't got no sisters, i've got one brother
Ain't got no land, Ain't got no country
Ain't got no freedom, Ain't got no god,
Ain't got no mind,
Ain't got no earth, Ain't got no students
Ain't got no father, Ain't got no mother
Ain't got no sweets, Ain't got no ticket
Ain't got no token, Ain't got no mind
Ain't got no land.
But there is something i've got,
there is something i've got,
there is something i've got,
nobody can take it away...
Got my hair on my head
Got my brains, Got my ears
Got my eyes, Got my nose
Got my mouth, I got my smile
I got my tongue, Got my chin
Got my neck, Got my boobies
Got my heart, Got my soul
Got my back, I got my sex
What's wrong with religion?
koan wrote: Sure. That might be fun to try. I'll consider anything at this point.
I love to have the breath that was given to me, that's for sure. :-6
I love to have the breath that was given to me, that's for sure. :-6
What's wrong with religion?
posted by ted
Of course things can be tested in science and they are. Science looks for the best possible solution to a particular issue based on the data and knowledge they have. As the data and knowledge change or develop they then change their best possible answer to another one and then another one and so on. Those who came up with the original solution had faith that it was the correct one. Then they later have to change their faith. All we have to do is look at the changes to science brought about by Einstein and now with the advent of quantum physics some of what Einstein said is being questioned.
That "faith as you put it starts out with the tacit assumption that it may change as new evidence is brought forward.
Religious faith is a whole different ballgame. It starts off with the belief in God but without the tacit assumption that someone might come along and proof he doesn't exist.
"The word is not to be questioned." I refer back to your category. This is simply not true of all churches or faiths.
perhaps not all. but the ones that do have that attitude cause problems out of all proportion to their numbers. If suicide bombers didn't believe they would go straight to heaven it would be harder to find martyrs.
Try telling a catholic the pope is not infallible and that when it comes to dogma he can safely be ignored. Or a creationist that the creation story is myth and should be ignored.
Or even that the divinity of christ is open to debate and you will find that violence is the first resort of many so called christians.
Free thinkers don't pontificate? Of course they do. Look at Russell. He was adamant about his stand and delivered that message forcefully. I've seen interviews with him. He was indeed pontificating.
Did he also claim to be infallible and really expect people to follow his word without question?
No of course he didn't because he was expressing an opinion. You may not have agreed with it but at least it wasn't being expressed with the "authority" of religious belief merely his own strongly held opinion.
So lets deal with that category: all Christians (to choose one group) are not free thinkers, follow blindly without questioning, take the Bible to be the literal, inerrant word of God is simply an untrue blanket statement that does not reflect reality. I know for a fact that it does not reflect reality in the Muslim faith as well.
While I would agree with you that there are many true followers that are not dangerous and will live in peace with their fellow man the sad fact is that religon attracts many that are anything but reasonable people. There are plenty around who do and who also feel they have a god given right to try and tell everybody what to believe. There are many religons that have used force to encourage conversion and given half a chance would use coercion to get their way.
Nowadays in this country and I dare say your own they use peaceable means but in the past being the wrong kind of christian was downright dangerous. Just as in iraq being the wrong kind of muslim has it's dangers now.
Blind faith, frustration, stupidity and hatred make a frighteningly lethal cocktail.
The God that you don't believe in is the same one I don't believe in. The only different is that I don't criticize the atheist for his position but many seem to think they need to be very adamant that those who do have a religious faith are somehow misguided or stupid or lack intelligence or lack the ability to think for themselves. If someone chooses to be an atheist that is their business and not mine. Nor is it mine to critize accept when such atheists make blanket statements that are patently untrue.
Leaving aside whether god exists for the moment-well maybe not. Religious faith is just that-faith you either believe it or you don't. Most aetheists or non believers would leave religious people alone if they did not keep trying to interfere and lecture those that don't share their particular belief.
When you get one religon who's followers want seperate schools from other religons in case they get contaminated then that kind of prejudice shows there is something wrong with religon-especially if it is one supposedly based on love and tolerance. When you get christians trying to alter the teaching of science in schools so that their belief in a myth gets given equal weight there is something wrong with religon. When you get the followers of one faith slaughtering another because they believe they will go to heaven there is something wrong with religon. When you get religious leaders preaching that another faith is evil and it's OK to go to war against them there is something wrong with religon. When you get religious leader preaching that killing another of a different but "wrong" faith is not a crime in god's eyes there is something wrong with religon.
You are right in that I am prejudiced against religon which is actually one of the reasons I keep away from the religious forum. You can't have a rational discussion about something that is intrinsically irrational.
I enjoy your posts ted but I doubt we will ever agree on anything except to disagree.
Of course things can be tested in science and they are. Science looks for the best possible solution to a particular issue based on the data and knowledge they have. As the data and knowledge change or develop they then change their best possible answer to another one and then another one and so on. Those who came up with the original solution had faith that it was the correct one. Then they later have to change their faith. All we have to do is look at the changes to science brought about by Einstein and now with the advent of quantum physics some of what Einstein said is being questioned.
That "faith as you put it starts out with the tacit assumption that it may change as new evidence is brought forward.
Religious faith is a whole different ballgame. It starts off with the belief in God but without the tacit assumption that someone might come along and proof he doesn't exist.
"The word is not to be questioned." I refer back to your category. This is simply not true of all churches or faiths.
perhaps not all. but the ones that do have that attitude cause problems out of all proportion to their numbers. If suicide bombers didn't believe they would go straight to heaven it would be harder to find martyrs.
Try telling a catholic the pope is not infallible and that when it comes to dogma he can safely be ignored. Or a creationist that the creation story is myth and should be ignored.
Or even that the divinity of christ is open to debate and you will find that violence is the first resort of many so called christians.
Free thinkers don't pontificate? Of course they do. Look at Russell. He was adamant about his stand and delivered that message forcefully. I've seen interviews with him. He was indeed pontificating.
Did he also claim to be infallible and really expect people to follow his word without question?
No of course he didn't because he was expressing an opinion. You may not have agreed with it but at least it wasn't being expressed with the "authority" of religious belief merely his own strongly held opinion.
So lets deal with that category: all Christians (to choose one group) are not free thinkers, follow blindly without questioning, take the Bible to be the literal, inerrant word of God is simply an untrue blanket statement that does not reflect reality. I know for a fact that it does not reflect reality in the Muslim faith as well.
While I would agree with you that there are many true followers that are not dangerous and will live in peace with their fellow man the sad fact is that religon attracts many that are anything but reasonable people. There are plenty around who do and who also feel they have a god given right to try and tell everybody what to believe. There are many religons that have used force to encourage conversion and given half a chance would use coercion to get their way.
Nowadays in this country and I dare say your own they use peaceable means but in the past being the wrong kind of christian was downright dangerous. Just as in iraq being the wrong kind of muslim has it's dangers now.
Blind faith, frustration, stupidity and hatred make a frighteningly lethal cocktail.
The God that you don't believe in is the same one I don't believe in. The only different is that I don't criticize the atheist for his position but many seem to think they need to be very adamant that those who do have a religious faith are somehow misguided or stupid or lack intelligence or lack the ability to think for themselves. If someone chooses to be an atheist that is their business and not mine. Nor is it mine to critize accept when such atheists make blanket statements that are patently untrue.
Leaving aside whether god exists for the moment-well maybe not. Religious faith is just that-faith you either believe it or you don't. Most aetheists or non believers would leave religious people alone if they did not keep trying to interfere and lecture those that don't share their particular belief.
When you get one religon who's followers want seperate schools from other religons in case they get contaminated then that kind of prejudice shows there is something wrong with religon-especially if it is one supposedly based on love and tolerance. When you get christians trying to alter the teaching of science in schools so that their belief in a myth gets given equal weight there is something wrong with religon. When you get the followers of one faith slaughtering another because they believe they will go to heaven there is something wrong with religon. When you get religious leaders preaching that another faith is evil and it's OK to go to war against them there is something wrong with religon. When you get religious leader preaching that killing another of a different but "wrong" faith is not a crime in god's eyes there is something wrong with religon.
You are right in that I am prejudiced against religon which is actually one of the reasons I keep away from the religious forum. You can't have a rational discussion about something that is intrinsically irrational.
I enjoy your posts ted but I doubt we will ever agree on anything except to disagree.
What's wrong with religion?
gmc:-6
I too have enjoyed our exchanges.
Scientifically one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Such a point is beyond the scientific process.
Since every group whether of faith or non-faith have their extremists its kind of hard to just point to one side or the other to lay complete blame. Don't blame a "Higher Power" for the misuse of the basic tenets for their own ends. Scientists have done the same ie. Mengele. Unfortunately humans are free to behave in inappropriate ways.
People are free to follow the Pope or not as they choose. The same goes for Creationists.
I do think if you checked with many members of any faith they would probably have many differences of opinion with their leadership just as happens in politics. That is part of the human condition.
Russell was certainly convinced that he was right and was adamant about that.
When I heard him I would call what I heard pontificating.
Of course there are fundamentalists that try to push their point of view. So did Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Alexander the Great, the Caesars of Rome. The church does not have a monopoly on that. Both those of faith and no faith were and are prone to that for some strange reason; probably part of the human condition.
I would argue with your comment on "Blind faith . . ." That certainly does not reflect the reality that I have seen in many places. Of course there are some but in the world there are a multitude of differing ideas about a multitude of topics.
As far as people buttonholing the atheist goes, no more I think than the other way around. Even at that the atheist is free to listen or not as s/he chooses. S/he certainly does not have to go to church or anything of that nature. We are all free to associate with whom we will and discuss with whom we will. I don't think that most Christians like having atheism thrust at them any more than the atheist appreciates faith being thrust at them.
When the basic tenets of a faith are worthwhile and noble it is hard to blame that faith for the actions of its adherents. Those of no faith can behave just as badly as those of some faith ie Stalin etc. The basic ideas put forth by Marx are not far from the basic ideas of the first church. The book of Acts clearly shows a community where all things are held in common and each gets according to his needs. Unfortunately it didn't work then any more than it does now. Human greed seems to be the problem as well as a pathological desire for power.
You can't have a rational discussion? Oh, okay.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I too have enjoyed our exchanges.
Scientifically one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Such a point is beyond the scientific process.
Since every group whether of faith or non-faith have their extremists its kind of hard to just point to one side or the other to lay complete blame. Don't blame a "Higher Power" for the misuse of the basic tenets for their own ends. Scientists have done the same ie. Mengele. Unfortunately humans are free to behave in inappropriate ways.
People are free to follow the Pope or not as they choose. The same goes for Creationists.
I do think if you checked with many members of any faith they would probably have many differences of opinion with their leadership just as happens in politics. That is part of the human condition.
Russell was certainly convinced that he was right and was adamant about that.
When I heard him I would call what I heard pontificating.
Of course there are fundamentalists that try to push their point of view. So did Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Alexander the Great, the Caesars of Rome. The church does not have a monopoly on that. Both those of faith and no faith were and are prone to that for some strange reason; probably part of the human condition.
I would argue with your comment on "Blind faith . . ." That certainly does not reflect the reality that I have seen in many places. Of course there are some but in the world there are a multitude of differing ideas about a multitude of topics.
As far as people buttonholing the atheist goes, no more I think than the other way around. Even at that the atheist is free to listen or not as s/he chooses. S/he certainly does not have to go to church or anything of that nature. We are all free to associate with whom we will and discuss with whom we will. I don't think that most Christians like having atheism thrust at them any more than the atheist appreciates faith being thrust at them.
When the basic tenets of a faith are worthwhile and noble it is hard to blame that faith for the actions of its adherents. Those of no faith can behave just as badly as those of some faith ie Stalin etc. The basic ideas put forth by Marx are not far from the basic ideas of the first church. The book of Acts clearly shows a community where all things are held in common and each gets according to his needs. Unfortunately it didn't work then any more than it does now. Human greed seems to be the problem as well as a pathological desire for power.
You can't have a rational discussion? Oh, okay.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
For Dawkins atheism is his religion. He has the utmost of faith in rationalism.
Shalom
Ted:-6
For Dawkins atheism is his religion. He has the utmost of faith in rationalism.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
It is interesting to consider the "liberation" that atheism has given many folks. If we consider the Soviet Union which was established to be an atheistic state the people not only lost most of their freedom but were forced at gun point to denounce a religious belief and accept atheism or they were either imprisoned or executed.
Consider Nazi Germany. Not only did they lose their freedom and were ultimately asked to deny religion but this atheistic state ended up killing some 5 M. Jewish folks. I say this knowing that Hitler claimed to be a religious believer but his actions proved otherwise.
Consider China, which has placed itself in the same position as the Soviet Union.
Marx himself wanted to force people to become athiests in spite of their own thinking even advocating brute force if necessary.
A moderate and reasonable religious faith allows folks to believe what they want to believe. Sure they try to evangelize and so do the atheists.
I fail to see where the liberation and freedom are when the atheist ridicules or castigates those who think differently. It can also force those who want a religious faith to go underground. That is freedom? I don't think so.
Shalom
Ted
Consider Nazi Germany. Not only did they lose their freedom and were ultimately asked to deny religion but this atheistic state ended up killing some 5 M. Jewish folks. I say this knowing that Hitler claimed to be a religious believer but his actions proved otherwise.
Consider China, which has placed itself in the same position as the Soviet Union.
Marx himself wanted to force people to become athiests in spite of their own thinking even advocating brute force if necessary.
A moderate and reasonable religious faith allows folks to believe what they want to believe. Sure they try to evangelize and so do the atheists.
I fail to see where the liberation and freedom are when the atheist ridicules or castigates those who think differently. It can also force those who want a religious faith to go underground. That is freedom? I don't think so.
Shalom
Ted
What's wrong with religion?
The following is from "The Twilight of Atheism" by Alister McGrath a professor at Oxford. Pg.263
"There is now growing awareness of the importance of spirituality in health care, both as a positiove factor in relation to well-being and as an issue to which patients have a right. The major conference "Spirituality and Healing in Medicine," sponsored by Harvard Medical School in 1998, drew public and professionals attention as never before to the issue of incorporating spirituality into professional medicine. It was there reported that 86 percent of Americans as a whole, 99 percent of family physicians, and 94 percent of HMO professionals now believe that prayer, meditiation, and other spiritual and religious practices exercise a major positive role within the healing process."
Shalom
Ted:-6
"There is now growing awareness of the importance of spirituality in health care, both as a positiove factor in relation to well-being and as an issue to which patients have a right. The major conference "Spirituality and Healing in Medicine," sponsored by Harvard Medical School in 1998, drew public and professionals attention as never before to the issue of incorporating spirituality into professional medicine. It was there reported that 86 percent of Americans as a whole, 99 percent of family physicians, and 94 percent of HMO professionals now believe that prayer, meditiation, and other spiritual and religious practices exercise a major positive role within the healing process."
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
I quite agree with that.
The fact of the matter is that such beliefs have been found to be important in the healing process. Anyone can add an interpretation to that one way or another.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I quite agree with that.
The fact of the matter is that such beliefs have been found to be important in the healing process. Anyone can add an interpretation to that one way or another.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
There's nothing vague about it. It has been shown to be important for some folks.
You can add any interpretation to the situation you like.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There's nothing vague about it. It has been shown to be important for some folks.
You can add any interpretation to the situation you like.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted;444840 wrote: Diuretic:-6
There's nothing vague about it. It has been shown to be important for some folks.
You can add any interpretation to the situation you like.
Shalom
Ted:-6
OK, an interpretation.
86% of the people who took part in the study had been born and raised in a religious household. Being something that they'd known from birth they found it comforting is a time of stress. Removal of stress is beneficial to the healing process.
Where is the control group to make this a proper scientific study?
I do not see that it proves anything about the truth or otherwise of religion.
There's nothing vague about it. It has been shown to be important for some folks.
You can add any interpretation to the situation you like.
Shalom
Ted:-6
OK, an interpretation.
86% of the people who took part in the study had been born and raised in a religious household. Being something that they'd known from birth they found it comforting is a time of stress. Removal of stress is beneficial to the healing process.
Where is the control group to make this a proper scientific study?
I do not see that it proves anything about the truth or otherwise of religion.
What's wrong with religion?
If meditation is good, God makes it better
Those practising spiritual meditation were more relaxed and better able to withstand pain than people performing secular meditation, a new study finds
GOD can help you relax, according to a study of meditation. People practising spiritual meditation were more relaxed and better able to withstand pain than those performing secular meditation.
Those practising spiritual meditation were more relaxed and better able to withstand pain than people performing secular meditation, a new study finds
GOD can help you relax, according to a study of meditation. People practising spiritual meditation were more relaxed and better able to withstand pain than those performing secular meditation.
What's wrong with religion?
A person with knowledge that they are being prayed for has an increase in their wellbeing. I'm unsure if there is conclusive evidence that benefit is shown when the person is not aware of the prayers. I'll look.
What's wrong with religion?
Also, if you read the linked article at New Scientist, it shows empirical evidence that those meditating on God had increased pain tolerance to those who just meditated on a positive thought. So it does have to do with the discussion.
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic;444890 wrote: Okay. I do remember one study where the patients who knew they were being prayed for (the control group) actually were worse off than the experimental group (these were recovering heart patients). But of course all kinds of unintended variables could creep into that control group.
The term for this type of prayer is "intercessory prayer" there is a growing number of researchers becoming interested in doing further studies
Source
The first good double blind randomised control trial of prayer is that already
mentioned, of Byrd et al. (1988) carried out in a coronary care unit. The names of the active group were sent to a prayer group who were instructed to pray that those named would get better more quickly and have fewer complications etc. The results were significant. In the prayed for group there was a five-fold reduction in the use of antibiotics, a three-fold reduction in the occurrence of pulmonary oedema, fewer subjects required intubation and fewer subjects (though not significantly fewer) died than in the control group. This paper became the model for a number of further studies.
Harris et al. (1999) looked at 999 consecutive patients attending a coronary care
unit. They were randomised to a group who were to be prayed for and a control group. The names of those in the subject group were sent to local prayer groups. The patients were unaware that they were being prayed for. The measures were the outcome of their coronary care and the length of their hospital admission. There were no differences in their coronary care and length of hospital admission, but when a coronary care unit score, comprising many different variables, was analysed, those in the prayer group had a significantly lower value than those who were not prayed for.
The results are not consistently repeatable yet, from what I can see. It should be remembered that the onus lies on both sides of the debate to provide empirical evidence, until then it is an unknown.
The term for this type of prayer is "intercessory prayer" there is a growing number of researchers becoming interested in doing further studies
Source
The first good double blind randomised control trial of prayer is that already
mentioned, of Byrd et al. (1988) carried out in a coronary care unit. The names of the active group were sent to a prayer group who were instructed to pray that those named would get better more quickly and have fewer complications etc. The results were significant. In the prayed for group there was a five-fold reduction in the use of antibiotics, a three-fold reduction in the occurrence of pulmonary oedema, fewer subjects required intubation and fewer subjects (though not significantly fewer) died than in the control group. This paper became the model for a number of further studies.
Harris et al. (1999) looked at 999 consecutive patients attending a coronary care
unit. They were randomised to a group who were to be prayed for and a control group. The names of those in the subject group were sent to local prayer groups. The patients were unaware that they were being prayed for. The measures were the outcome of their coronary care and the length of their hospital admission. There were no differences in their coronary care and length of hospital admission, but when a coronary care unit score, comprising many different variables, was analysed, those in the prayer group had a significantly lower value than those who were not prayed for.
The results are not consistently repeatable yet, from what I can see. It should be remembered that the onus lies on both sides of the debate to provide empirical evidence, until then it is an unknown.
What's wrong with religion?
To me the important point is that such practices have been shown to be of help in the healing process. If someone wants to play the rational game that is fine with me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
There is absolutely no need for a conflict between religion and science. They should be working together for the betterment of mankind. They should not be throwing mud balls at each other. That is a totally infantile action.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted;445284 wrote: There is absolutely no need for a conflict between religion and science. They should be working together for the betterment of mankind. They should not be throwing mud balls at each other. That is a totally infantile action.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As has been said before, science and religion cover separate parts of our lives and shouldn't be trying to invade the others territory so to speak.
No conflict and working together sounds good.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As has been said before, science and religion cover separate parts of our lives and shouldn't be trying to invade the others territory so to speak.
No conflict and working together sounds good.
What's wrong with religion?
I think that religion probably has contributed to bettering the world. But I think there are too many cults. And my experience with religion, has not been a good one. So I am probably not the one to answer this thread.
I do know that my education that I acquired by being in Catholic school was a better one that I would have gotten if I'd been in a public school. And I am thankful for that.
I do know that my education that I acquired by being in Catholic school was a better one that I would have gotten if I'd been in a public school. And I am thankful for that.
Your Kitty Forum
My Website
My Website
What's wrong with religion?
Saffron:-6
Sounds good to me.
BTW, not all churches judge one another.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Sounds good to me.
BTW, not all churches judge one another.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Another quote from "The Twilight of Atheism" by A. McGrath. This is in response to the criticism that the church never changes as science does.
" . . .The rise of atheism in the West was undoubtedly a protest against a corrupted and complacent church; yet paradoxically, it has energized Christianity to reform itself, in ways that seriously erode the credibility of those earlier criticisms. Where atheism creiticized, wise Christians move to reform their ways.
The atheist dilemma is that Christianity is a moving target whose trajectory is capable of being redirected without losing its anchor point in the New Testament. And as the theologian John Henry Newman pointed out, Christianity must listen to such criticism from outside its bounds precisely because listening may be a way of recapturing its vision of the gospel. A static atheism finds a moving Christianity highly inconvenient." pg 277
McGrath points out elsewhere that Christianity has responed to the findings of the scientific community and the experiences of people and adjusted its thinking appropriately and yet is able to maintain its anchor in the New Testament. BTW Alistar McGrath started out life as an avowed atheist which changed when he went to university.
Shalom
Ted:-6
" . . .The rise of atheism in the West was undoubtedly a protest against a corrupted and complacent church; yet paradoxically, it has energized Christianity to reform itself, in ways that seriously erode the credibility of those earlier criticisms. Where atheism creiticized, wise Christians move to reform their ways.
The atheist dilemma is that Christianity is a moving target whose trajectory is capable of being redirected without losing its anchor point in the New Testament. And as the theologian John Henry Newman pointed out, Christianity must listen to such criticism from outside its bounds precisely because listening may be a way of recapturing its vision of the gospel. A static atheism finds a moving Christianity highly inconvenient." pg 277
McGrath points out elsewhere that Christianity has responed to the findings of the scientific community and the experiences of people and adjusted its thinking appropriately and yet is able to maintain its anchor in the New Testament. BTW Alistar McGrath started out life as an avowed atheist which changed when he went to university.
Shalom
Ted:-6