Prayer is powerless. Fundies pray it's not true.
Fredric L. Rice
Prayer has no power, study finds
Patients fared about the same with or without entreaties
By Michael Stroh
Baltimore Sun
July 15, 2005
Praying for someone who is ill and preparing to undergo a risky medical
procedure appears to have no effect on the patient's future health.
That's the finding of one of the largest scientific investigations of the
power of prayer conducted to date. Scientists said the study, published
today in The Lancet, will undoubtedly renew debates over whether prayer has
a measurable effect on illness and even whether it's a suitable subject of
scientific inquiry.
For the study, researchers at Duke University recruited nearly 750 people
undergoing heart-related procedures. Religious groups of different
denominations were randomly assigned to pray for the health of half the
volunteers. The other half received no organized prayers.
Researchers found that the prayers, offered by representatives of
Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist faiths, had no effect on whether
patients experienced post-procedure complications such as heart attack,
death or readmission to the hospital.
Duke researchers did find that another nontraditional intervention known as
"MIT therapy," which involves playing music and administering therapeutic
touch at the bedside, did have a slight beneficial health effect.
Volunteers who received MIT therapy, researchers found, had less emotional
distress before their procedure and a slightly lower mortality rate six
months after admission.
Mitchell Krucoff, the Duke University cardiologist who led the study, says
the research, sponsored by several medical centers and foundations, was not
intended to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether prayer
works. The study, he said, was mostly intended to determine the best way to
evaluate the influence of prayer.
"This is still very fertile ground," he said.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Kevin
FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
http://1stholistic.com/Prayer/hol_prayer_proof.htm
There is ample proof that prayer works. Many scientific studies have
been conducted that validate this observation.
A 1993 Israeli survey following 10,000 civil servants for 26 years found
that Orthodox Jews were less likely to die of cardiovascular problems
than "nonbelievers." And a 1995 study from Dartmouth College in Hanover,
N.H., monitoring 250 people after open-heart surgery concluded that
those who had religious connections and social support were 12 times
less likely to die than those who had none.
In an attempt to understand the depression that often accompanies
hospitalization, Duke University researchers assessed 1,000 hospital
patients from 1987 to 1989; patients who drew on religious practices,
including prayer, were found to cope far better than those who didn't.
NIH recently convened a panel to determine the merits of integrating
conventional medicine with behavioral and relaxation therapies to treat
hypertension. The team found that the conflation of therapies, of which
prayer was a key component, "can lower one's breathing rate, heart rate,
and blood pressure."
The University of New Mexico in Albuquerque is studying the power of
prayer to heal alcoholics. And there is a prayer-and-healing study in
progress at Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, the nation's
leading naturopathic-training institute. Certainly, following a
spiritual or religious lifestyle might lead to better health; the devout
may be less likely to succumb to the hazards of smoking, drinking, and
sleeping around. However, for the non-believers, it is hard to
understand how intercessory or non-local prayer works. This is thew
situation when the sick persons are prayed for and don't even know it.
In the most widely publicized studies of the effect of intercessory
prayer, cardiologist Randolph Byrd studied 393 patients admitted to the
coronary-care unit at San Francisco General Hospital. Some were prayed
for by home-prayer groups, others were not. All the men and women got
medical care. In this randomized, double-blind study, neither the
doctors and nurses nor the patients knew who would be the object of
prayer.
The results were dramatic and surprised many scientists.The men and
women whose medical care was supplemented with prayer needed fewer drugs
and spent less time on ventilators. They also fared better overall than
their counterparts who received medical care but nothing more. The
prayed-for patients were:
Significantly less likely to require antibiotics (3 patients versus 16)
Significantly less likely to develop pulmonary edema-a condition in
which the lungs fill with fluid because the heart cannot pump properly
(6 versus 18).
Significantly less likely to require insertion of a tube into the throat
to assist breathing (0 versus 12).
Less likely to die (but this difference was not statistically
significant).
Even more outrageous experiments in distance healing involve nonhuman
subjects. In a survey of 131 controlled experiments on spiritual
healing, it was found that prayed-for rye grass grew taller; prayed-for
yeast resisted the toxic effects of cyanide; prayed-for test-tube
bacteria grew faster. "I adore these experiments," says Larry Dossey,
M.D., perhaps the world's most vocal expert on prayer and medicine.
"Because they don't involve humans, you can run them with fanatical
precision and you can run them hundreds of times. It's the best evidence
of all that prayer can change the world. And it operates as strongly on
the other side of the Earth as it does at the bedside."
In his 1994 book, Healing Words, Larry Dossey, M.D., co-chair of the
Panel on Mind-Body Interventions of the Office of Alternative Medicine
at the National Institutes of Health in Washington, D.C., reviewed over
100 experiments, most published in parapsychological literature ' on the
effects of prayer/visualization. More than half showed an effect on
everything from seed germination to wound healing.
In several experiments, volunteers visualized stimulating or retarding
the growth of bacteria and fungi and achieved significantly positive
results from as far as 15 miles away.
At the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas, researchers took
blood samples from 32 volunteers, isolated their red blood cells (RBCS)
and placed the samples in a room on the other side of the building. Then
the researchers placed the RBCs in a solution designed to swell and
burst them, a process that can be measured extremely accurately. Next
the researchers asked the volunteers to pray for the preservation of
some of the RBCS. To help them visualize, the researchers projected
color slides of healthy RBCS. The praying significantly slowed the
swelling and bursting of the RBCS.
In another study at the Mind Science Foundation, volunteers in a room on
one side of the building were asked to visualize volunteers in a room on
the other side of the building becoming calmer or more agitated.
Meanwhile, the "receivers" were hooked up to biofeedback-type equipment
to gauge their reactions. The results showed that the "influencers"
exerted a statistically significant effect on the receivers' moods.
These experiments have shown that prayer can take many forms. Results
occurred not only when people prayed for explicit outcomes, but also
when they prayed for nothing specific.
The experiments showed that a simple "Thy will be done" approach was
quantitatively more powerful than when specific results were held in
mind.
A simple attitude of prayerfulness, an all pervading sense of holiness
and a feeling of empathy, caring, and compassion for the entity in need,
seemed to set the stage for healing.
Experiments also showed that prayer positively affected:
High Blood Pressure
Wounds
Heart Attacks
Headaches, and
Anxiety.
The subjects in these studies included:
Water
Enzymes
Bacteria
Fungi
Yeast
Red blood cells
Cancer cells
Pacemaker cells
Seeds
Plants
Algae
Moth larvae
Mice
Chicks
The processes that had been influenced by prayer were:
Activity of enzymes
The growth rate of leukemic white blood cells
Mutation rates of bacteria
Germination and grwth rates of various seeds
Firing rate of pacemaker cells
Healing rates of wounds
The size of goiters and tumors
Time required to awaken from anesthesia
Autonomic effects such as electrodermal activity of the skin, rates of
hemolysis of red blood cells and hemoglobin levels.
It did not matter whether the praying person was with the person who was
prayed for the power of prayer to work. You can pray for someone who is
far away and still will have an influence on the outcome.
Nothing seems to block or stop the effects of prayer - the object in one
study was placed in a lead-lined room and in another in a cage that
shielded it from all known forms of electromagnetic energy, the effect
still go through.
Given the scientific evidence, Dossey and several other researchers now
admit that withholding prayer from an ailing patient is downright
irresponsible. "It became an ethical issue for me," says Dossey, who
defines prayer as "communication with the absolute."
At a Boston conference sponsored by Harvard Medical School, one of the
participants predicted that in just 10 years patients will be questioned
about not only their personal medical history but also their spiritual
belief system.
Certainly, the idea of distance healing is catching on even today.
Cyberspace is full of fellow believers who post their requests on daily
prayer chains. Those who believe in distance healing are not sure how it
works, though theories abound. Some say it involves sending some kind of
subtle, as-yet-unidentified energy to the person in need. Others,
including Dossey, say quantum physics may play a role, or what
Cambridge-trained biologist Rupert Sheldrake calls "morphogenetic
fields," unabounded by space or time.
In the absence of hard data, it remains a mystery or a miracle.
The other kind of prayer, in which sick people pray for their own
recovery, is far easier for science to explain. Given the proven health
benefits of meditation lowering blood pressure, reversing heart disease
it's not difficult to see how prayer, which can be equally meditative
and relaxing, might induce the same effects.
According to Koenig of Duke University, "when prayer uplifts or calms,
it inhibits cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine - hormones that
flow out of the adrenal glands in response to stress. These
fight-or-flight chemicals, released over time can compromise the immune
system, upping the odds of developing any number of illnesses, including
heart disease, stroke, peptic ulcers, and inflammatory bowel disorder
(IBS)." Many experts feel that the immune system is strengthened and
nourished by a sense of peace, which can be transferred from one
individual to another or used inwardly. Of course, the ancient stories
of the Bible and seminal works of Eastern religions link healing with
faith.So, it is reasonable to assume that something such as prayer that
provides comfort and peace would influence the propensity for you to get
disease or how you recover from a disease.
Recent scientific investigation shows that prayer can be used as an
alternative therapy as successfully as meditation, exercise, or
herbalism. A study of 91,000 people in rural Maryland showed that weekly
church attendees had 50 percent fewer deaths from heart disease than
non-churchgoers and 53 percent fewer suicides. Churchgoers have lower
blood pressure levels than nonbelievers, even after smoking and other
known risk factors are taken into consideration.
Many doctors believe that if they prayed with their patients before and
after surgery or before administering a course of powerful drugs, this
treatment might assist in the patient's recovery. Thirty medical schools
in America are now offering courses in faith and medicine.
"Prayer works," says Dr. Matthews, associate professor of medicine at
Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., and senior
research fellow at the National Institute for Healthcare Research in
Rockville, Maryland. Dr. Matthews has reviewed more than 200 studies
linking religious commitment and health, cited in his book, 'The Faith
Factor'.
Dr. Matthews cites studies suggesting that people who pray are less
likely to get sick, are more likely to recover from surgery and illness
and are better able to cope with their illnesses than people who don't
pray. Some evidence indicates that sick people who are prayed for also
fare significantly better than those who aren't. In fact, some
physicians report that people who are prayed for often do better even if
they don't know they're being prayed for.
--
Kevin
pjsavoie
"Kevin" <barbara...@mentalhospital.net> wrote in message
news:barbaraschwarz-B1F...@news.charter.net...
No! Sorry! Despite your report from a believer site, SCIENCE reports
say no. It is common for poorly-referenced studies to be misinterpreted or
edited or taken out of context by faith-healing adherents:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/miracle-study.html
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-12/reality-check.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/prayer.html
CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal) and their magazine, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, is a great resource
on-line. You can type in their search-engine if ever you are inclined to
believe in UFOs, Bermuda Triangle, astrology, Uri Geller, etc. and find out
what is actually known.
You can also try the Skeptic's Dictionary:
Here is what it says about Dianetics:
http://skepdic.com/dianetic.html
Kevin
"pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> No! Sorry! Despite your report from a believer site, SCIENCE reports
> say no. It is common for poorly-referenced studies to be misinterpreted or
> edited or taken out of context by faith-healing adherents:
Guess what! Go look up the word "supernatural"
I'll do it for you
supernatural PPronunciation Key(spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Now Science is a study of our natural world.
Science by definition cannot prove or disprove the supernatural.
it fails before it begins.
I am sorry, you are teh wr0ng.
--
Kevin
pjsavoie
Well, then! If the supernatural is so outside the natural world, and
you are made up of cells made up of natural chemical compounds, how do YOU
sense this supernatural, then?
You can't create a safe space outside the "natural" world for bizarre
crap to exist. Scientists have extended their senses, probed the invisible
through natural means (telescopes, microscopes, X-rays). They can explain
what they find. You neither explain this "supernatural" nor do you explain
how you and not scientists with billion-dollar instruments found it.
Science is not defined like that, nor does it have any territorial
limitations, since you have yet to prove that there is more than one, real,
world.
So, sorry, no cookie.
Kevin
"pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> "Kevin" <barbara...@mentalhospital.net> wrote in message
> news:barbaraschwarz-0F3...@news.charter.net...
> > In article <BdOdnfOf1Y7...@rogers.com>,
> > "pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No! Sorry! Despite your report from a believer site, SCIENCE
> >> reports
> >> say no. It is common for poorly-referenced studies to be misinterpreted
> >> or
> >> edited or taken out of context by faith-healing adherents:
> >
> > Guess what! Go look up the word "supernatural"
> >
> > I'll do it for you
> >
> > supernatural PPronunciation Key(spr-nchr-l)
> > adj.
> > 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
> >
> > Now Science is a study of our natural world.
> >
> > Science by definition cannot prove or disprove the supernatural.
> >
> > it fails before it begins.
> >
> > I am sorry, you are teh wr0ng.
>
>
> Well, then! If the supernatural is so outside the natural world, and
> you are made up of cells made up of natural chemical compounds, how do YOU
> sense this supernatural, then?
Who said I did?
But that is one of the fruits of the spirit.
> You can't create a safe space outside the "natural" world for bizarre
> crap to exist. Scientists have extended their senses, probed the invisible
> through natural means (telescopes, microscopes, X-rays). They can explain
> what they find. You neither explain this "supernatural" nor do you explain
> how you and not scientists with billion-dollar instruments found it.
Who said I found it? That is what faith is about. But you certainly
can't use natural knowledge to explain the unnatural.
> Science is not defined like that, nor does it have any territorial
> limitations, since you have yet to prove that there is more than one, real,
> world.
Such proof is not needed to prove that Science or the study of natural
phenomenon CANNOT explain supernatural events.
THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM SUPERNATURAL.
If it could be explained under natural laws, it would no longer be
supernatural.
> So, sorry, no cookie.
I agree, try again.
--
Kevin
mail.com
L. Rice) wrote:
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-aprayer15jul15,0,5212179.story
>
> Prayer has no power, study finds
> Patients fared about the same with or without entreaties
> By Michael Stroh
> Baltimore Sun
>
> July 15, 2005
>
> Praying for someone who is ill and preparing to undergo a risky medical
> procedure appears to have no effect on the patient's future health.
As if this was somehow a surprise to anyone.
Kevin
desertphile@hot mail.com (Disloyal Officer) wrote:
> As if this was somehow a surprise to anyone.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/prayer.html
--
Kevin
pjsavoie
> In article <2Yadna0rffN...@rogers.com>,
> "pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>> Well, then! If the supernatural is so outside the natural world,
>>> and
>> you are made up of cells made up of natural chemical compounds, how do
>> YOU
>> sense this supernatural, then?
> Who said I did?
>
> But that is one of the fruits of the spirit.
"Fruits of the spirit"? Please elaborate. You're trying to bolster an
unsupported claim with yet another unsupported claim, that is, that
"spirits" exists. And out of the blue, you say "fruits of the spirit".
>> You can't create a safe space outside the "natural" world for
>> bizarre
>> crap to exist. Scientists have extended their senses, probed the
>> invisible
>> through natural means (telescopes, microscopes, X-rays). They can
>> explain
>> what they find. You neither explain this "supernatural" nor do you
>> explain
>> how you and not scientists with billion-dollar instruments found it.
>
> Who said I found it? That is what faith is about. But you certainly
> can't use natural knowledge to explain the unnatural.
There is no artificial boundary between "natural" and "unnatural"
realms. Didn't you say "supernatural" before? Why now switch to
"unnatural". You have yet to prove that there is more than one reality,
which on the face of it, is a silly proposition. If it's reality to you, it
should be reality to all, unless you misinterpreted something, right? If no
one else sees your reality, you would have to question that and admit
misinterpretation as a possibility, right?
>> Science is not defined like that, nor does it have any territorial
>> limitations, since you have yet to prove that there is more than one,
>> real,
>> world.
>
> Such proof is not needed to prove that Science or the study of natural
> phenomenon CANNOT explain supernatural events.
But you can't make an assertion that science can't see something until
you prove that that something exists! You are a real tail-chaser, you know
that? Arguing for some hypothetical unseen thing to bolster your claim that
science has limits!
Kevin
"pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> There is no artificial boundary between "natural" and "unnatural"
> realms.
Yes, yes there is. Or they would be named the same thing.
> Didn't you say "supernatural" before? Why now switch to
> "unnatural".
Same thing.
> You have yet to prove that there is more than one reality,
I don't have to prove any such thing. I am theoretically speaking
> But you can't make an assertion that science can't see something until
> you prove that that something exists! You are a real tail-chaser, you know
> that? Arguing for some hypothetical unseen thing to bolster your claim that
> science has limits!
Science does have limits. Stop being such a science zealot.
I mean at one time atoms where supernatural.
Science didn't even know they existed.
--
Kevin
pjsavoie
You are using an example based on the work of Elizabeth Targ, daughter
of paranormalist Russell Targ. She's no psychologist, but a New Ager who
participated in her father's paranormal "experiments" since she was a teen.
I don't blame WIRED for having its ear bent by kooks, but how is she a valid
source on anything? Here is information about Elizabeth Targ:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/fringe-watcher.html
You haven't been doing too well defending your ideas. You have been
saying, if I summarize you correctly, "many scientific studies confirm the
power of prayer in healing" but faced with the evidence I have presented
you, you should instead be saying, "many flawed scientific studies have been
initiated by kooks and cranks, most not even published in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, but that didn't prevent the studies' authors from
holding big press-conferences so they could spread these ideas among
journalists. They counted on the fact that most people don't read science
reports, they read simple-minded newspapers of working-class appeal, with
the simple crosswords and the daily photo of a girl in a bikini."
That would be a more fair assessment of the situation. Nor should my
statement be construed as being offensive to working-class newspapers with
the simplified vocabulary and bikini pics! Sometimes a little skepticism
filters down to them too, when the situation is blatant and the fraud easy
to understand and not tied up in unknowns and subtlety.
Kevin
"pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
Stop being pretentiously snooty.
--
Kevin
Ramona
http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want to also
read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
Ramona
Kevin
"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want to also
> read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
>
> Ramona
>
> lisamcpherson.org
pwned!
Not only that, he can't seem to understand how the natural by definition
cannot explain or disprove the supernatural.
--
Kevin
pjsavoie
Here is where you fail miserably. People have been proposing atoms for
at least 2,500 years on a natural, non-supernatural basis. But the truth of
things was unknown. Just that: simply unknown. The unknown can not be
assumed to be "magic" or supernatural, it just stays unknown. Just because
it IS unknown, doesn't mean you can ascribe zany causes to a thing. That is
the error that the supernatural mind-set leads you into again and again.
Even unknown things fall under the sole investigative purview of science.
For who is likely to discover an unknown thing today? Preachers?
Navel-gazers? Or scientists with billion-dollar instruments?
Misperceptions, again, about the one reality. The tendency to
romanticize the unknown. When China and Asia were unknowns to Europeans,
they made up stories about headless people with eyes and mouths in the
middle of their chests, dog-faced people, etc. Because the place was far
away and unknown, they filled it with "supernatural" people like that. This
is the premise of an amusing fiction book by Umberto Eco, BAUDOLINO, where a
Northern Italian, after living through wars and Medieval life in his native
land, goes on a quest to find Prester John and all the other legends about
the East, and describes his adventures while in the middle of a conflict in
Constantinople.
But, guess what? When the world became known, a closed sphere all
visited and measured, there were no dog-faced people or headless people with
eyes and mouths in the middle of their chests. All the faith in such people
vanished, in fact should never have taken place. Who is to say your limited
tribal religion, your limited New Age beliefs, or whatever, won't suffer the
same fate in as little as 10 years?
Do you get it, yet? The "unknown" status of a thing does not give you
licence to propose a "supernatural" origin for it, as indeed the Greeks did
not, for atoms. They did not imbue their atoms with spirits, they just
thought it was particles too small to be seen and left the unknown aspects
at that.
Ramona
I disagree. Supernatural is not to the exclusion of natural. Just as
the "supernatural" prayer is testable.
Here is the problem, you can't prove a negative. There is no proof of
God. Nothing other than God's appearance will prove that existence.
Follow?
Believe if you will. Have faith if you will. But, you can't prove
God.
But here is the kick in the pants. Because God is the negative, you
also cannot disprove the existence of God.
Ramona
lisamcpherson.org
>
> --
>
> Kevin
pjsavoie
"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121646461....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want to also
> read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
>
> Ramona
>
> lisamcpherson.org
The trouble is that what you offer us is really not readable. There are
options to get "abstract" and "full text" versions...but you must buy a
subscription for full text. The first one on the list is not a "win", it
just concluded that a statistical 57% rate merited "further study".
Instead of raw search-engine outputs, why not list the links to the
studies? Or how about a meta-study, where someone actually fairly compiles
all the studies on a subject in peer-reviewed, scientific journals and
assesses which outcomes were good, bad or useless?
CSICOP uses science experts to write their articles. These assess the
whole field of a claim, and then they debunk it. Of course, journalists are
not bound by what they see as one expert's opinion, so they can go hog-wild
spreading rumour and the pronouncements of this or that "believer" if they
want. But sometimes there is balance.
Ramona
Ramona
pjsavoie
Kevin, is that REALLY the only answer you can give me? I was hoping
for something more factual, not value-neutral emoting! After all your
presentation of bad evidence, you verge into personal allusions? Don't go
into the fallacy of "shooting the messenger", it doesn't affect the message.
The situation is as I've described, or you would have countered with
evidence. The situation doesn't change no matter how much of a nasty
personality I MAY WELL HAVE. That is a different topic. Oh, yes, I also
weigh 700 pounds and do nothing all day but type at a computer in my Mom's
basement, sitting in an accumulating puddle of my own filth. :-) But that
changes nothing. I'm still right, you're still wrong.
I will say only this, a further reading of Elizabeth Targ leads me to
the amusing fact is that a devout Presbyterian funded her study on
prayer...unaware of what other New Age nonsense she promotes. Yet the
Christian is clearly enjoined NOT to support New Age beliefs:
-------
Deut. 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer
of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. (18:10-12)
18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a
necromancer.
18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and
because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from
before thee. [KJV]
-------
In Biblical terminology, an "observer of times" means an astrologer, a
"diviner" COULD be a remote-viewer, a "consulter with familiar spirits"
means what we would now call a channeller (channelers usually summon the
spirit of a great and powerful Ascended Master with great wisdom, not Mwom
the inconsequential bricklayer from Ancient Egypt. It's more dramatic that
way.)
The Bible patriarchs made these laws not out of trying to kick out the
competition, but because they recognized "supernatural" scams even 3,000
years ago. It's too bad John Templeton the Presbyterian billionaire didn't
see through Targ's background before forking over a grant.
pjsavoie
You have yet to prove that there IS a supernatural! Why do you keep
invoking imaginary things to bolster your arguments?
Ramona
pjsavoie wrote:
> "Kevin" <barbara...@mentalhospital.net> wrote in message
> news:barbaraschwarz-E19...@news.charter.net...
> > In article <1121646461....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want to also
> >> read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
> >>
> >> Ramona
> >>
> >> lisamcpherson.org
> >
> >
> > pwned!
> >
> > Not only that, he can't seem to understand how the natural by definition
> > cannot explain or disprove the supernatural.
>
> You have yet to prove that there IS a supernatural!
It's a negative argument. Just as he cannot Prove God, you will not be
able to disprove God.
Ramona
Kevin
"pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> You have yet to prove that there IS a supernatural! Why do you keep
> invoking imaginary things to bolster your arguments?
Look it up in the dictionary. It indeed exists.
--
Kevin
pjsavoie
>
>
> pjsavoie wrote:
>> "Kevin" <barbara...@mentalhospital.net> wrote in message
>> news:barbaraschwarz-E19...@news.charter.net...
>> > In article <1121646461....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want to
>> >> also
>> >> read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> Ramona
>> >>
>> >> lisamcpherson.org
>> >
>> >
>> > pwned!
>> >
>> > Not only that, he can't seem to understand how the natural by
>> > definition
>> > cannot explain or disprove the supernatural.
>>
>> You have yet to prove that there IS a supernatural!
>
> It's a negative argument. Just as he cannot Prove God, you will not be
> able to disprove God.
I don't think things are so mirror-image "agree to disagree" like that.
That is not the scientific way. The default position is always skepticism
to any new claim: a claim that there is NO God, just like there are NO blue
unicorns in my basement, NO body thetans, until some proof creeps into the
real material universe (the only one, really, or if you must, the only one
where WE live, where every atom of our bodies is a material real component).
The supposed importance of a claim only INCREASES the need for valid
proof, not decreases it.
But, anyway, can we declare a truce about this? The important thing
HERE is to kick Scientology's ass.
Kim Palmer
Kim P
pjsavoie
There are words for "concepts" as well as concrete things. Having a
word for it, like "zero-point energy" or "cold fusion" doesn't mean it
actually exists.
David Rice, Esq.
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/prayer.html
LOL! Okay, I should have written "As if this was somehow a
surprise to anyone who can detect bullshit when they see it." You
flunked the test. Ms. Targ could not (and did not) design a valid
scientific test if it would save her life.
Ms. Targ's "study!! ROTFL!!!!!!
David Rice, Esq.
<pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> Stop being pretentiously snooty.
Translation: "Oh dear, I cannot think of any rational refutation
of those facts so I must concede I was wrong and you are right,
but that still upsets me so I must resort to the last refuge of
the shamefully debunked--- all I have left is the _ad_hominem_."
> Kevin, is that REALLY the only answer you can give me?
It is the standard answer from such people when they discover they
and their cherished yet false beliefs have been utterly refuted
and demonstrated wrong.
> I was hoping for something more factual, not value-neutral emoting!
Surely you did not expect her or him to reply rationally, eh?
> After all your
>presentation of bad evidence, you verge into personal allusions? Don't go
>into the fallacy of "shooting the messenger", it doesn't affect the message.
>The situation is as I've described, or you would have countered with
>evidence. The situation doesn't change no matter how much of a nasty
>personality I MAY WELL HAVE. That is a different topic. Oh, yes, I also
>weigh 700 pounds and do nothing all day but type at a computer in my Mom's
>basement, sitting in an accumulating puddle of my own filth. :-) But that
>changes nothing. I'm still right, you're still wrong.
Well hell, he believed (before you corrected him, which he has
demonstrated he has accepted as correct---- his _ad_hominem_ is
proof of that) that Ms. Targ was a real scientist! One cannot
reason with such people and expect a rational reply.
Ms. Targ! LOL!!!! Next he or she will start quoting Ingo Swann as
an authority! LOL!
The Bible claims Saul fell for a NewAge scam. Amazing how the
ancient bullshit still works on the gullible.
Kevin
"pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
Ok lets hypothetically say it does exist. Hypothetically if the
supernatural exists, Science could not explain or disprove it.
Because the Supernatural is something by definition that Science cannot
explain because it goes against the natural laws as we know them.
Is that better?
--
Kevin
Kevin
deser...@hottmail.com (David Rice, Esq.) wrote:
> Translation: "Oh dear, I cannot think of any rational refutation
> of those facts so I must concede I was wrong and you are right,
> but that still upsets me so I must resort to the last refuge of
> the shamefully debunked--- all I have left is the _ad_hominem_."
No because you were just repeated what was said and debunked before, but
this time in a pretentious condescending way.
No need to repeat myself.
--
Kevin
Kevin
Kim Palmer <yduzit...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> I still take science over blind faith any day
>
> Kim P
Some faith is not always blind. Not everyone has blind faith in prayer.
--
Kevin
Kim Palmer
therefore prayer is based only on faith - prayer is not a dialogue -
there is no actual conversation - only the belief that God is actually
listening -no proof at all that God exists or not - merely faith asserts
that there is a God.
Faith is always blind - it cannot prove that which it only believes to
be true. Simple.
Believe what you want but do not for one second think you can make
another choose to believe what you believe just because you think you
have found THE ONE TRUE FAITH.
Kim P
pjsavoie
But you still haven't earned the right to talk about the supernatural as
a real thing. Sorry. Still no cookie.
Kevin
"pjsavoie" <pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> But you still haven't earned the right to talk about the supernatural as
> a real thing. Sorry. Still no cookie.
I don't need your permission to talk about the supernatural any way I
want. Heh.
Stop being pretentious.
--
Kevin
Ramona
Kim Palmer wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> > In article <42db1826$1...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> > Kim Palmer <yduzit...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I still take science over blind faith any day
> >>
> >>Kim P
> >
> >
> > Some faith is not always blind. Not everyone has blind faith in prayer.
> >
> >
> prayer is based on the BELIEF that someone is listening - faith
> therefore prayer is based only on faith - prayer is not a dialogue -
> there is no actual conversation - only the belief that God is actually
> listening -no proof at all that God exists or not - merely faith asserts
> that there is a God.
Unless of course, God Exists. Again it is a negative argument, but
despite that only two possibilities can exist.
1. God does not exist
2. God Exists.
While you might hedge your bet against the existence of God. Others
may hedge their bets overwise. One of you is correct, the other wrong.
>
> Faith is always blind - it cannot prove that which it only believes to
> be true. Simple.
Correct again because it is a negative argument.
>
> Believe what you want but do not for one second think you can make
> another choose to believe what you believe just because you think you
> have found THE ONE TRUE FAITH.
Ah but history has shown that some people are very capable of getting
others to believe as they do.
I also like your proposition to agree to disagree. I was a very wise
statment.
Ramona
lisamcpherson.org
>
> Kim P
mail.com
wrote:
> http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want
> to also read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
You ought to learn what a study is before claiming these are
"studies."
mail.com
<pjsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> "Kevin" <barbara...@mentalhospital.net> wrote in message
> news:barbaraschwarz-E19...@news.charter.net...
>> Not only that, he can't seem to understand how the natural
>> by definition cannot explain or disprove the supernatural.
> You have yet to prove that there IS a supernatural! Why do
> you keep invoking imaginary things to bolster your arguments?
Because her or his intelligence is imaginary.
One (such as "Kevin") can very easily argue that pink invisible
unicorns take baths with people without the people knowing it
because one cannot use the non-invisible paradigm to explain the
invisible.
Or in other words, she or he is full of shit and *KNOWS* she or he
is full of shit.
mail.com
wrote:
> It's a negative argument. Just as he cannot Prove [sic]
> God [sic], you will not be able to disprove God [sic].
Fortunately no one wants to, let alone has to, "prove" gods do not
exist.
It should be pointed out that it is usually people who believe in
gods that attempt to disprove the existances of other gods. People
who lack belief in the gods rarely try such a silly thing.
By the way: you are utterly unable to disprove the existance of
pink invisible unicorns. Therefore they exist.
mail.com
wrote:
> I disagree. Supernatural is not to the exclusion of natural.
> Just as the "supernatural" prayer is testable.
There is no such thing as "supernatural." Sorry, but that's just
the way it is. You will either have to be a grown-up about it or
continue to appear infantile and foolish.... *OR* produce some
evidence that "supernatural" means anything outside of silly human
being's imaginations.
You cannot do the latter and you *DARE* not do the former, so you
are stuck with the middle option.
Kevin
desertphile@hot mail.com (Disloyal Officer) wrote:
> Or in other words, she or he is full of shit and *KNOWS* she or he
> is full of shit.
You sure do project a lot.
--
Kevin
ramona
Disloyal Officer wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2005 18:41:54 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's a negative argument. Just as he cannot Prove [sic]
> > God [sic], you will not be able to disprove God [sic].
>
> Fortunately no one wants to, let alone has to, "prove" gods do not
> exist.
They could not regardless. That is the nature of the argument and it's
futile nature in argument.
>
> It should be pointed out that it is usually people who believe in
> gods that attempt to disprove the existances of other gods. People
> who lack belief in the gods rarely try such a silly thing.
>
> By the way: you are utterly unable to disprove the existance of
> pink invisible unicorns. Therefore they exist.
I would have said that people that believe in God(s) claim their own as
superior to all other(s.)
Yes, the pink invisible unicorn exists to the person that really and
truly believes in them.
There is one here that believes in her own very strange marriage to a
man though he is not actually that man. Her father she believes is
Hubbard. To her it is all very real.
Ramona
Lisamcpherson.org
ramona
Disloyal Officer wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2005 17:43:47 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > I disagree. Supernatural is not to the exclusion of natural.
> > Just as the "supernatural" prayer is testable.
>
> There is no such thing as "supernatural." Sorry, but that's just
> the way it is.
You are neither sorry, nor "is that the way it is." You are so busy
ranting as to not read waht is actually being written. Sheesh, take a
deep breath.
Supernatural is not to the exclusion of natural. Why? Because it
simply is not yet able to be explained. Does that mean it defies some
law of nature? Nope, it is just not yet understood.
>You will either have to be a grown-up about it or
> continue to appear infantile and foolish.... *OR* produce some
> evidence that "supernatural" means anything outside of silly human
> being's imaginations.
Again, not all things are explainable. How is it that some people born
with complete agenisis of the corpus collusum are not very functional
in society, yet others seem unaffected? It's not explainable.
>
> You cannot do the latter and you *DARE* not do the former, so you
> are stuck with the middle option.
Nope some remain with the option to have a faith in that which you
chose not to have faith in. Pink unicorns aren't always bad for floks,
especially if in the end the invisible pink univorn exists. We hedge
our bets and it remains some will chose for some against.
Just as you viciously detest someone placing their belief system on
you, so too do those that have faith wish you do the same for them
Ramona
ramona
Oh brother. And if you want to critique the Annals of Internal
Medicine, have at it, but don't pester me. I'm just the messenger.
Ramona
ramona
Nope, I am guessing that Kevin believes quite honestly. As for the
pink unicorn, I don't know of any that believe in such, but as for God
I know many. He is not standing alone but united with a vast
percentage of people that believes in some form of higher power.
But what do I know? The Christians all damn me to hell.
Ramona
Kevin
> > You ought to learn what a study is before claiming these are
> > "studies."
"I Know about Psychology you don't"
:D
--
Kevin
mail.com
wrote:
> Nope, I am guessing that Kevin believes quite honestly. As for the
> pink unicorn, I don't know of any that believe in such, but as for
> God[sic] I know many. He is not standing alone but united with a
> vast percentage of people that believes in some form of higher power.
Well golly. So according to you shit is really god (more flies
believe in shit than humans believe in the other gods).
The gross fallacy of your argument is assuming the existance of
the gods depends upon the number of people who believe in those
gods.
Albert Einstien "stood alone" when he pointed out that events
differ in time depending upon where one observes them. Over two
billion people believed otherwise. The entire world was "united
with a vast percentage of people" against him. Einstein was also
right and 99.999999% of humanity was wrong. *POOF!* goes the
numbers game argument.
mail.com
wrote:
> Disloyal Officer wrote:
> > On 17 Jul 2005 18:41:54 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > It's a negative argument. Just as he cannot Prove [sic]
> > > God [sic], you will not be able to disprove God [sic].
> > Fortunately no one wants to, let alone has to, "prove" gods do not
> > exist.
> They could not regardless. That is the nature of the argument and it's
> futile nature in argument.
Yes, and neither could they prove Pink Invisble Unicorn does not
exist, and for the same reasons. That is the nature of the
argument and it's futile nature in argument.
> > It should be pointed out that it is usually people who believe in
> > gods that attempt to disprove the existances of other gods. People
> > who lack belief in the gods rarely try such a silly thing.
> > By the way: you are utterly unable to disprove the existance of
> > pink invisible unicorns. Therefore they exist.
> I would have said that people that believe in God(s) claim their own as
> superior to all other(s.)
Yes, and they are just as silly as the people who denounce all of
the billions and billions of other gods.
Popularity is a damn poor excuse to believe something.
> Yes, the pink invisible unicorn exists to the person that really and
> truly believes in them.
Ah, no. You are probably kidding, but I'll point out anyhow that
reality determines what exists, not belief.
> There is one here that believes in her own very strange marriage to a
> man though he is not actually that man. Her father she believes is
> Hubbard. To her it is all very real.
Yes, and that is an entirely different subject than the existance
of gods and the usefulness of praying to the gods.
"Kevin" claims that parying to the gods has been shown to help
speed up healing. That absurd and false assertion is presented by
him as (false) "evidence" that the gods prayed to exist. There is
no evidence for their claim, ergo it is dismissed.
> Ramona
>
> Lisamcpherson.org
>
mail.com
wrote:
> Disloyal Officer wrote:
> > On 17 Jul 2005 17:27:41 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want
> > > to also read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
> >
> > You ought to learn what a study is before claiming these are
> > "studies."
> "A systematic review of randomized trials" was less simple than study.
> Oh brother. And if you want to critique the Annals of Internal
> Medicine, have at it, but don't pester me. I'm just the messenger.
You are not "just the messenger" when you refuse to know what you
are supporting and defending. The driver of the get-away car is
equally as guilty as the gun-toting bank robbers.
The "studies" are flawed and widely known to be flawed. None of
them were able to create a proper control group; none of them were
able to create a proper study group; they were utterly unable to
calculate a probability bell-curve, therefore could not calculate
what the level of significance would be.
Take just one of the very great many flaws:
How does one create a control group when examining the "efficacy"
of praying to the gods to effect the healing process? IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE! One cannot prevent each and every one of the world's
six billion prople from praying for one or more of the members in
the control group. How did they prevent Scientologist Operating
Thetans from using their magical god-like powerzes and abilities
to help the study group to heal, and retard the natural healing of
the control group?
Another massive flaw, also widely proved to be a flaw:
How does one mathmatically evaluate each and every human being in
the study and control groups regarding constitution, genetic
factors, behavior, and dispositions---- all of which effect a
person's innate healing abilities? Since they CANNOT be
calculated, the data could not be normalized and therefore no
chi-squared oh-five significance (or any other) could be
calculated. Ergo, the people doing the "study" COULD NOT EVEN KNOW
what constituted a higher than expected "success" rate!
There are a very great many more flaws in all of these "studies."
"Kevin" will utterly reject the flaws and the conclusions these
flaws demand from the intellectually honest because she or he has
a vested interest in believing the falsehood.
> Ramona
> lisamcpherson.org
ramona
Disloyal Officer wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2005 20:22:32 -0700, "ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Disloyal Officer wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Jul 2005 18:41:54 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > It's a negative argument. Just as he cannot Prove [sic]
> > > > God [sic], you will not be able to disprove God [sic].
>
> > > Fortunately no one wants to, let alone has to, "prove" gods do not
> > > exist.
>
> > They could not regardless. That is the nature of the argument and it's
> > futile nature in argument.
>
> Yes, and neither could they prove Pink Invisble Unicorn does not
> exist, and for the same reasons. That is the nature of the
> argument and it's futile nature in argument.
But a pink unicorn is not a normal and accepted belief system in MOST
of the world.
>
> > > It should be pointed out that it is usually people who believe in
> > > gods that attempt to disprove the existances of other gods. People
> > > who lack belief in the gods rarely try such a silly thing.
>
> > > By the way: you are utterly unable to disprove the existance of
> > > pink invisible unicorns. Therefore they exist.
>
> > I would have said that people that believe in God(s) claim their own as
> > superior to all other(s.)
>
> Yes, and they are just as silly as the people who denounce all of
> the billions and billions of other gods.
>
> Popularity is a damn poor excuse to believe something.
You are preaching to the choir, but it doesn't change the fact pattern.
>
> > Yes, the pink invisible unicorn exists to the person that really and
> > truly believes in them.
>
> Ah, no. You are probably kidding, but I'll point out anyhow that
> reality determines what exists, not belief.
No I wasn't kidding. To the person that believes in the pink
unicorn...it's exists.
>
> > There is one here that believes in her own very strange marriage to a
> > man though he is not actually that man. Her father she believes is
> > Hubbard. To her it is all very real.
>
> Yes, and that is an entirely different subject than the existance
> of gods and the usefulness of praying to the gods.
But it is based on the same issue.
>
> "Kevin" claims that parying to the gods has been shown to help
> speed up healing.
My point is, it is not only Kevin that carries such a belief. The vast
majority of the inhabitants of earth believe the same as he does.
>That absurd and false assertion is presented by
> him as (false) "evidence" that the gods prayed to exist. There is
> no evidence for their claim, ergo it is dismissed.
There is no evidence for yours either, "ergo it is dismissed."
>
> > Ramona
> >
> > Lisamcpherson.org
> >
ramona
Simkatu wrote:
> Ramona wrote:
>
> > Unless of course, God Exists. Again it is a negative argument, but
> > despite that only two possibilities can exist.
> > 1. God does not exist
> > 2. God Exists.
>
> > While you might hedge your bet against the existence of God. Others
> > may hedge their bets overwise. One of you is correct, the other wrong.
>
> Ah, the infamous Pascal's Wager. A fallacy that has been pointed out
> even in Pascal's own lifetime.
>
> If we are to believe in God because believing in him costs little, and
> the alternative is eternal damnation, then exactly which god do we
> believe in? Should we believe in the Mormon god, the Judiac god, Allah,
> Buddah, Xenu, Zeus, Bob Dobbs, L. Ron Hubbard?
Specifics are not relevent to me as they seem to you. I only stated
that a god exists or it does not. If the god that supposedly exists is
mormon, it would change nothing, since god would then exist.
>
> Your assertion that only two possibilities exist is specious.
>
> There is a 3rd possibility that several gods exist simultaneously, as
> the greeks and romans believed
Again, then god exists as opposed to god not existing.
>
> There is a 4th possibility that every human is a god
again then god still exists in an anthropomorphic sense.
>
> There is a 5th possibility that there are infinite gods
still god would exist
>
> There are nearly infinite combinations of the above ideas.
again two possiblities either god exists no matter how defined, or god
does not.
>
> So Pascal's Wager has us hedge our bets by believing in all the
> possibilities of the above combinations simultaneously. So I must
> believe in Allah, Zeus, God, Jesus, Xenu, all at the same time, despite
> the fact that all of the religions tell us that the others are incorrect.
> Because if I guess the wrong God(s), then he/she/it/they will send me to
> the fiery pits of hell.
That's why I'm a jew. Hell doesn't exist and agnosticism is perceived
as normal since we CANNOT know the nature of God. L'chaim-to life.
Lead your life in the here and now, because that may be all you have.
>
> Sounds more like a lottery than a simple toss up bet like you proposed.
>
> And if I have to play the lotto to get the heaven, then I guess I'm not
> going.
I'm bringing the creampuffs. Well at least that is my standard snippy
response when yet another s. baptist (I live in the deep south of u.s.)
damns me yet again to hell for "not believing in the name lord jesus"
whatever that means. My Hindu friend is bringing the Subway
sandwiches. She owns the shop and is regularly preached at over her
lunch counter.
Regards,
Ramona
ramona
Disloyal Officer wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2005 20:44:18 -0700, "ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Disloyal Officer wrote:
> > > On 17 Jul 2005 17:27:41 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want
> > > > to also read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
> > >
> > > You ought to learn what a study is before claiming these are
> > > "studies."
>
> > "A systematic review of randomized trials" was less simple than study.
> > Oh brother. And if you want to critique the Annals of Internal
> > Medicine, have at it, but don't pester me. I'm just the messenger.
>
> You are not "just the messenger" when you refuse to know what you
> are supporting and defending. The driver of the get-away car is
> equally as guilty as the gun-toting bank robbers.
>
Kevin cited something and I found the original source of the
information he was spouting. Give me the gun now, I want all the money
in pennies only.
> The "studies" are flawed and widely known to be flawed.
and they still made it into the Annals.
>None of
> them were able to create a proper control group; none of them were
> able to create a proper study group; they were utterly unable to
> calculate a probability bell-curve, therefore could not calculate
> what the level of significance would be.
>
> Take just one of the very great many flaws:
>
> How does one create a control group when examining the "efficacy"
> of praying to the gods to effect the healing process? IT IS
> IMPOSSIBLE! One cannot prevent each and every one of the world's
> six billion prople from praying for one or more of the members in
> the control group. How did they prevent Scientologist Operating
> Thetans from using their magical god-like powerzes and abilities
> to help the study group to heal, and retard the natural healing of
> the control group?
You have got to be kidding me. Take a prozac.
Ramona
mail.com
wrote:
> Disloyal Officer wrote:
> > Yes, and neither could they prove Pink Invisble Unicorn does not
> > exist, and for the same reasons. That is the nature of the
> > argument and it's futile nature in argument.
> But a pink unicorn is not a normal and accepted belief system in MOST
> of the world.
Golly. So you appear to be saying that if the majority of humans
vote The Easter Bunny into existance, evidence for that existance
will not be necessary.
mail.com
wrote:
> Disloyal Officer wrote:
> >None of
> > them were able to create a proper control group; none of them were
> > able to create a proper study group; they were utterly unable to
> > calculate a probability bell-curve, therefore could not calculate
> > what the level of significance would be.
> >
> > Take just one of the very great many flaws:
> >
> > How does one create a control group when examining the "efficacy"
> > of praying to the gods to effect the healing process? IT IS
> > IMPOSSIBLE! One cannot prevent each and every one of the world's
> > six billion prople from praying for one or more of the members in
> > the control group. How did they prevent Scientologist Operating
> > Thetans from using their magical god-like powerzes and abilities
> > to help the study group to heal, and retard the natural healing of
> > the control group?
> You have got to be kidding me. Take a prozac.
So you have now admitted you cannot refute the facts. Thank you.
> Ramona
Kim Palmer
preachiness and arrogance that makes them feel entitled to tell all and
sundry what people HAVE to believe...let me think for myself thanks and
since you are bringing cream puffs I will bring brownies ;-)
Kim P
> Regards,
>
> Ramona
>
> lisamcpherson.org
>
ramona
No more than you can. You forgot already that it's a negative
argument. If you chose to refute what was posted at the Annals, feel
free to write them.
>Thank you.
Welcome.
Ramona
lisamcpherson.org
>
> > Ramona
Have mercy you remind me of Spacey.
mail.com
wrote:
> > > You have got to be kidding me. Take a prozac.
> > So you have now admitted you cannot refute the facts.
> No more than you can.
I have zero need to refute anything since I did not assert any
postive claim: I merely noted that the "studies" you refereed to
are not studies, were grossly flawed, are bogus, and have been
conclusively debunked. Your answer to my pointing out these facts
was to insult me personally instead of offer any argument that
contradicts or negates those facts---- in other words, you could
not refute them, therefore you conceded.
ramona
But we are still not discussing the Easter Bunny since it is also known
to be first pagan, then christian fairytale-esque. Again, not real and
most of the world knows it to not be real.
In darkest Africa, there was a beast. It was large and hairy yet very
human in appearance. A few tribesmen had seen this creature and spoke
with the white travelers about this man-animal. But it was believed
the fancy of tribal tales and not real for their was not skeletal
evidence. Does this sound a little like bigfoot? But it wasn't. You
see the animal that was found was the moutain gorilla in 1902ish.
When the world was considered flat, nobody needed evidence because it
was a known. But when evidence was made available to the contrary, it
could not be questioned.
But the question remains a negative one.
Ramona
Lisa Ruby
>Prayer is powerless. Fundies pray it's not >true.
Prayer (to the God of the Holy Bible) is powerful. Scientology
processing brainwashes people to believe it is not true.
Scientology wants you to think that there is no power strong enough to
set you free from their control.
Thank God that is not true.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
mail.com
<Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote:
> Fredric L. Rice's title:
> >Prayer is powerless. Fundies pray it's not >true.
> Prayer (to the God [sic] of the Holy [sic] Bible) is powerful.
No evidence, ergo DISMISSED!
Come back once you have some evidence for your claim. Thank you.
Kevin
beliefs are based on faith as well.
Too bad. Bite the pillow.
ramona
Disloyal Officer wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2005 17:27:41 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want
> > to also read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
>
> You ought to learn what a study is before claiming these are
> "studies."
Argue with Annals then. I know that one was clearly a review of
studies.
Kevin wrote something and I found the source.
You do realize that you are preaching to the choir?
Ramona
ramona
Disloyal Officer wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2005 11:24:37 -0700, "ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > You have got to be kidding me. Take a prozac.
>
> > > So you have now admitted you cannot refute the facts.
>
> > No more than you can.
>
> I have zero need to refute anything since I did not assert any
> postive claim:
Well that is painfully clear since I stated it was a negative argument
and that neither side can currently affirm anything.
> I merely noted that the "studies" you refereed to
> are not studies, were grossly flawed, are bogus, and have been
> conclusively debunked.
Argue with Annals about it then.
I only posted what Kevin referred to. I found his source for him.
> Your answer to my pointing out these facts
> was to insult me personally instead of offer any argument that
> contradicts or negates those facts
Yes because you are getting neurotic over a topic of no interest to me.
It's a flipping negative argument. Scream from the rooftops that God
does not exist. I don't honestly give a rats ass. It won't change the
fact pattern any.
---- in other words, you could
> not refute them, therefore you conceded.
No. I repeat for the billionth time, it's a negative argument and
neither side is capable of proving anything.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Ramona
ramona
Lisa Ruby wrote:
> Fredric L. Rice's title:
>
> >Prayer is powerless. Fundies pray it's not >true.
>
> Prayer (to the God of the Holy Bible) is powerful.
Hold on there. The Muslim Fundies prayed to their Allah and look at
what happened to the twin towers and the pentagon. That says that
Allah is mighty awesome.
> Scientology
> processing brainwashes people to believe it is not true.
And the N.T. teaches people to think non-christians are only deserving
of hell and justifies horrors against non-christians by christians.
How lovely.
>
> Scientology wants you to think that there is no power strong enough to
> set you free from their control.
Wow, the design was inspired by christianity. Awesome.
>
> Thank God that is not true.
Prove it. OH wait you still can't because it remains a negative
argument.
Have you stopped being an idiot?
Ramona
lisamcpherson.org
>
>
> Lisa Ruby
> http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
mail.com
wrote:
> Disloyal Officer wrote:
Yes, and I apologize for my zealotry, which usually comes in the
form of abusive attack---- I realize you are not worthy of my ire.
The reason I object so strenuously is because people who believe
in magical cures and healing far too often abandon real treatment.
When these flawed "studies" claim that praying helps heal serious
diseases (such as heart diseases), many will believe it and "try
it" along with proper medical care, but a small subset will "try
it" exclusively. They end up maimed, crippled, and/or dead.
Worse, when the person trying to pray her or his illness away
discoveres it did not work, they tend to blame themselves. Worse
yet, the proponants of "faith healing" tend to tell the victim
that they lacked enough "faith" to effect the cure.
> Ramona
> lisamcpherson.org
ramona
Enturbulation Order wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2005 20:42:48 -0700, "ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Disloyal Officer wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Jul 2005 17:27:41 -0700, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=prayer You may want
> > > > to also read these studies. They suggest otherwise.
>
> > > You ought to learn what a study is before claiming these are
> > > "studies."
>
> > Argue with Annals then. I know that one was clearly a review of
> > studies.
> >
> > Kevin wrote something and I found the source.
> >
> > You do realize that you are preaching to the choir?
>
> Yes, and I apologize for my zealotry, which usually comes in the
> form of abusive attack---- I realize you are not worthy of my ire.
I am not easily insulted, okay yes I am. But I knew that you only
misunderstood me. So no biggie.
>
> The reason I object so strenuously is because people who believe
> in magical cures and healing far too often abandon real treatment.
I know that full well. Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions
and die because of one silly line in their bible that is excessivley
interpreted. Oddly enough breastfeeding is allowed. Blood from the
mother's cracked nipple enters the nursing infant. Oh they are damned
ot hell for nursing then!
> When these flawed "studies" claim that praying helps heal serious
> diseases (such as heart diseases), many will believe it and "try
> it" along with proper medical care, but a small subset will "try
> it" exclusively. They end up maimed, crippled, and/or dead.
Agreed.
>
> Worse, when the person trying to pray her or his illness away
> discoveres it did not work, they tend to blame themselves. Worse
> yet, the proponants of "faith healing" tend to tell the victim
> that they lacked enough "faith" to effect the cure.
I understand, but you are preaching to the choir.
With regards,
Ramona
lisamcpherson.org
>
> > Ramona
> > lisamcpherson.org