First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
The Power of Prayer
6509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/4/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


angelseraphim wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


angelseraphim wrote:

So where do you stand on this. Creationism?


I’m deistic as far as that goes. Would you like me to explain why?


Of coarse I would. You have a wide array knowledge and your topics are always interesting.


Hey, that other user is getting upset that somebody disagrees with him. I'll answer your question through a private message, okay?


Ahh. Immature people getting all pouty and upset. LOL. Ok send it to me through a PM.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/4/08 , edited 9/4/08

SeraphAlford wrote:
Hey, that other user is getting upset that somebody disagrees with him. I'll answer your question through a private message, okay?


Upset? No, I'm just pointing out that our country is a secular nation, created by the Founding Fathers, many of them bordering on Deism. And I just found it hypocritical in how you kept trying to validate your religious beliefs with science.

If you don't want me to rip into your factually erroneous posts, then just say so.

'If you can stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.'


Posted 9/4/08

crunchypibb wrote:


thenatureofthings wrote:

My youth pastor was telling me this story how he and a prayer circle in Thailand was praying for one of their friends that had this crazy infection in her big toe that made it swell to incredible size and what not..... anywho I can't remember if he said it was almost immediately or after an hour that it was healed. Normally I do not take those sorts of stories seriously but since this was someone who I knew very well and did expect to lie to me I was pretty iffy on it (still am). I have faith and all and do believe in the power of prayer but only for drastic circumstances. I dunno.....


Hey tnt! Ya prayer works when you put effort into it. But what you said in red disturbs me. Sounds like you use prayer as an airbag. The thing is prayer doesn't have to work like that, you can use it as often as you want and God would actually love it. It's like acne cream, you don't wait until the acne appears cause then it's too late. Use the acne cream even after the acne's gone.
.....Ya I just used a bad example x_x. But meghan, God's like that neighbor who's always got your back. Talking to him more will actually be benificial cause then he can even help you on dire situations even if you didn't ask for his help yet. Plus prayer is actually more like a conversation, not just a help hotline.


*smiles* That isn't quite what I meant. I pray all the time to God for things like comfort and guidance. What I meant by the red text was that with miracles such as healing I do not think they happen as often as people say they do.
1681 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / =>Here
Offline
Posted 9/4/08
This is what I think about science and religion:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Science tries to prove what ever they want to prove by finding the correct "answer" directly. It doesn't waste time to prove others wrong, unless their main goal is to prove the other "answers" are wrong.

ex: 1+1=2. The equation doesn't say 1+1=3 is wrong. When you do this problem, you don't even think about the wrong answer (Hmmm.... Could the answer for 1+1 be 2,498,753?), since there is an infinite number of wrong answers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religion proves by saying "other answers" are wrong, thereby there is only ONE, or defined number of, correct "answer(s)", which they claim they have. They do this by eliminating other OBVIOUS wrong answers to justify their answer is correct. However, to me, this way doesn't make sense when there is a very complicated problem, because there is an infinite number (usually) of wrong answers.

ex: A dictionary. You look up words by going back and forth in these pages. Say you are finding the word "random", you have 2 options: 1) you are to far down the alphabet go back, or 2) you aren't there yet, keep on going. You do this until you eventually arrive at the word "random." You try to find the right word by eliminating either option 1 or option 2.

In religion, saying other are wrong and you are right in these situation is very hard since you have more than just 2 simple options, and what seems to be right answer is too blurry to make it out.

ex: Going back to the dictionary example, you are trying to find a word that means: done by chance and with no plan. The word I'm talking about is the word "random"of course. Pretend you are a foreigner and you are new to the language. You can only eliminate the words you know the meaning of and cross those out, but there is still a huge number of words left to be crossed out, and it will take a huge amount of time to find that word in the dictionary. This can also mean the word "luck". It is done by chance and with no plan, but imagine someone switch the usage between these two words, they will be really funny when they try to communicate

Of course this sounds ridiculous to you, because you can narrow down the meaning of the word to find the correct word. But REMEMBER you are a foreigner, you are new to this language, and you are not even sure if this word exist! If you are Chinese and you are trying to the word that means "the female parent of your mom", this word does NOT exist in English! You can say grandma but it applies to both your mom AND dad. Chinese have a 2 different word for grandma, one for the dad side, and one for the mom side. If you widen the definition a little bit more to "the female parent of YOUR parent" you just may find the word "grandma".
15439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
71
Offline
Posted 9/4/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

statistically proven to be effective.




I actually read about a study that showed people who were prayed for are MORE likely to develop complications in surgery
I think this is it
http://www.freethinkerscs.com/?q=node/193

I really don't think prayer does anything (much)...studies can show anything.
15439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
71
Offline
Posted 9/4/08

24hours7days wrote:

This is what I think about science and religion:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Science tries to prove what ever they want to prove by finding the correct "answer" directly. It doesn't waste time to prove others wrong, unless their main goal is to prove the other "answers" are wrong.

ex: 1+1=2. The equation doesn't say 1+1=3 is wrong. When you do this problem, you don't even think about the wrong answer (Hmmm.... Could the answer for 1+1 be 2,498,753?), since there is an infinite number of wrong answers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religion proves by saying "other answers" are wrong, thereby there is only ONE, or defined number of, correct "answer(s)", which they claim they have. They do this by eliminating other OBVIOUS wrong answers to justify their answer is correct. However, to me, this way doesn't make sense when there is a very complicated problem, because there is an infinite number (usually) of wrong answers.


Science doesn't try to prove things "wrong" because the laws of science can be rewritten if substantial evidence is provided. Furthermore when you set up an experiment with a desire to prove something wrong it will be biased. It is the onus of the theoretician or theologian or alchemist or scientist to prove that 1+1 is 3. If they can do that, fine, you've discovered a special set of circumstances. If something in the bible is shown to be untrue you have to make amends or patchwork by re-interpreting it so it can "fit in" with what you have already established. Trying to make your facts "fit in" is bad science.

As for the dictionary example: Isn't that like wondering what the definition of God is, opening up to a random page and declaring the first word you see as God? Seems like a pretty bad way of determining the truth.

2703 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 9/4/08 , edited 9/4/08
Science used for proving things wrong? What a negative person you are. Science is used to establish fact, not denounce it.

Religion is to me, bogus. Overtly confusing and contradictory, lacking in information and insight. If something like Scientology can be recognised as a religion then that just puts further doubt over god. Why is it anyone can invent a religion?

I believe people who are devout to be scared of the aftermath of death...The thought of non-existence is frightening and people choose to believe in the afterlife and religion to overcome their fear and also to have a purpose in life thought out for them. I don't think some of the values religions teach are wrong, just how they are interpretted.

Also, there is no evidence to say it wasn't a coincidence that prayer helps. Thats like placing guys named john and guys named jack in a raffle and seeing which name was more successful. Completely irrelevant.
726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 9/5/08
Check this out... You might find an answer.

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-pray.html
1407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/08
prayers are powerful...
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/08

Intranetusa wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:
Hey, that other user is getting upset that somebody disagrees with him. I'll answer your question through a private message, okay?


Upset? No, I'm just pointing out that our country is a secular nation, created by the Founding Fathers, many of them bordering on Deism. And I just found it hypocritical in how you kept trying to validate your religious beliefs with science.

If you don't want me to rip into your factually erroneous posts, then just say so.

'If you can stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.'




You do realize I was never validating my religion? Seriously, if you’d gone through and actually read my posts you would have realized this by now. Read the initial post-does it say anywhere within it that the study was specific to any one religion? No, because it wasn’t. Once again, I don’t think there’s anything supper natural going on here.

I think it’s a natural phenomenon that we’ll eventually understand. Until then, we can only really speculate. Speculation is fun; it stretches the imagination and leads to intellectual predictions for the future of science. I was simply hoping to enjoy a fun conversation. Some people, however, are so absorbed with what they have to say that they ignore everyone else.

“Get out of the kitchen?” Well, I dare say you have no right to force me or anyone else out of her. Should someone express that they have no further intention of talking with you, you’re obliged to leave them be. Otherwise you’re just harassing people. Rather or not you find my opinions meaningful or factually accurate, I’m still a user with just as many rights as you. I deserve human respect.

You clearly have the aptitude for an actually intellectual and meaningful conversation or debate. I’d be more than happy to have one with you. However, what you’ve been doing up until this point is the polar opposite of pursuing intelligent conversation. You’ve been flaming, so consumed with what you have to say that you don’t thoroughly read my posts.

You’ve been condescending, sarcastic, and overly zealous. It makes enjoying a conversation with you utterly impossible. In all reality, you ran way off topic. “I’m just pointing out that our nation is a secular nation.” Go back through the entire thread and show me where exactly I said it wasn’t. Nobody did, nobody said anything about America.

Where I was hypocritical I still don’t realize. Even if I had tried to validate my religion with science. Look, I find rational explanation for things. That doesn’t mean that I think everything is rational. I have no reason to try and scientifically validate my religion. Perhaps you should look up the word mystic.

The founding fathers bordering on deism? Read my posts, I said that when you first brought them up. I never said they weren’t. They were Judeo/Christian deists, but deists none the less. At least, most of the, though certainly not all of them. Some of them probably were secular. Others, I’m certain, were highly religious individuals.

Lastly, just because I’m an American and our nation is secular doesn’t mean I am. I’m highly religious. Just because I support secular political policies such as the separation of church and state doesn’t mean that I’m secular. It simply means that I’d prefer a secular government/nation.

Just because you’re a deist doesn’t mean you’re secular. Deism is religious of itself. It’s just a rational approach to religion. Mystical or not, I myself have some deistic beliefs, views, and opinions. One example is that I think that if there is a God he isn’t just some magical chimera fairy. He’s a scientific entity through which all things are possible.

I simply think that the specific deistic argument you presented was silly. God doesn’t have to –need- to do something before he does it. Once again, if he is all powerful than he can act without necessity. So, why shouldn’t he?
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/5/08 , edited 9/5/08

SeraphAlford wrote:
You do realize I was never validating my religion? Seriously, if you’d gone through and actually read my posts you would have realized this by now. Read the initial post-does it say anywhere within it that the study was specific to any one religion? No, because it wasn’t. Once again, I don’t think there’s anything supper natural going on here.


Well, you sure did make it seem like you were trying to validate your religion.

Explained via the following posts:

SeraphAlford wrote:
Well, the only way for free-will to exist is for a God-such as the Judeo/Christian God-to exist. People think that God’s existence nulls the existence of free-will, but that’s not necessarily true.



SeraphAlford wrote:
Because the only way to remove evil is to remove the unfavorable consequences…but, in doing this, you remove free-will.....So, he created mankind with free-will. There’s always the argument of “Well, if God knows the future then we can’t have free will,” but this argument is logically self-contradictory and scientifically false.


You had brought up 'science' to support your idea ranging from God creating mankind with free will...saying that ideas that criticize this form of God is 'logically self-contradictory and scientifically false.'


SeraphAlford wrote:
Scientifically speaking, it’s technically possible that one or more religions can be true or hold an element of truth. The first option is a religious possibility, but also a scientific possibility.


In this post, you imply science and religion justify each other in similar elements of truth, and that religious elements are also scientific elements.

Now, perhaps this phrase was just worded in a strange manner? Did you mean that some religious elements can be true, and validated by science?

However, in this post, you clearly say that science does not exist without God (preferably the God you believe in) driving it.

SeraphAlford wrote:
But if evolution programmed you then you’re not defining yourself at all. Evolution is. As a matter of a fact, free will cannot exist without some kind of God because every moment in time exists in cognition to one another. In other-words, the future is already determined. It is true to say that what will be will be, but at the same time what will be already is; therefore, free will must be an illusion because you have no control over your future actions and cannot change them. The only way to escape this is to call upon an entity which can surpass human logic-aka, a mystical God..


This post is your strongest post yet in saying that science, such as evolution, justifies religious elements such as God(s) or religious elements through free will.



Through all these posts, I came to the conclusion that you're glorifying or justifying your religion by bringing up scientific concepts. This is the main reason for my sarcasm - because it seems like a double standard.



SeraphAlford wrote:
I think it’s a natural phenomenon that we’ll eventually understand. Until then, we can only really speculate. Speculation is fun; it stretches the imagination and leads to intellectual predictions for the future of science. I was simply hoping to enjoy a fun conversation. Some people, however, are so absorbed with what they have to say that they ignore everyone else.


Sure, I like speculation too. I speculate that the 4th dimension can be spatial instead of time.
As for your accusations...then I'd accuse you of using speculation to push a particularly specific agenda for a very specific religion.



SeraphAlford wrote:
“Get out of the kitchen?” Well, I dare say you have no right to force me or anyone else out of her. Should someone express that they have no further intention of talking with you, you’re obliged to leave them be. Otherwise you’re just harassing people. Rather or not you find my opinions meaningful or factually accurate, I’m still a user with just as many rights as you. I deserve human respect.

>_> ... The phrase 'Get out of the kitchen' is not literal - it's a metaphor.
"If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen" means if you can't cope with the pressure, then put an end to the issue.
I used the phrase because you had claimed I was angry and upset, and had abruptly ended the conversation and continued on with the other user.


SeraphAlford wrote:
You clearly have the aptitude for an actually intellectual and meaningful conversation or debate. I’d be more than happy to have one with you. However, what you’ve been doing up until this point is the polar opposite of pursuing intelligent conversation. You’ve been flaming, so consumed with what you have to say that you don’t thoroughly read my posts. You’ve been condescending, sarcastic, and overly zealous. It makes enjoying a conversation with you utterly impossible. In all reality, you ran way off topic.

I can say the exact same for you. You're denying you've been pushing your agenda by claiming science backs your religion, but your posts imply the exact opposite. Sarcasm and some condescension as a response to hypocrisy and denial.


SeraphAlford wrote:
“I’m just pointing out that our nation is a secular nation.” Go back through the entire thread and show me where exactly I said it wasn’t. Nobody did, nobody said anything about America.

Then I'll admit that's my bad. Because you had brought up Atheism with Secularism, it seemed like you thought Secularism was another promoter of Atheism.

My reasoning being that many, especially the religious conservatives, claim that Secularism is the hell-spawn of Atheism, and that our nation is not Secular but was founded on Conservative Protestantism.


SeraphAlford wrote:
The founding fathers bordering on deism? Read my posts, I said that when you first brought them up. I never said they weren’t. They were Judeo/Christian deists, but deists none the less. At least, most of the, though certainly not all of them. Some of them probably were secular. Others, I’m certain, were highly religious individuals.shouldn’t he?

Of course. Many were Christians. I brought it up because it seems that many hold the opinion that all our founders were somehow all evangelicals, and wanted our nation to become a Theocracy.


SeraphAlford wrote:
Deism is religious of itself.

Yes, Deism is a religion in many cases, and just a philosophy in some cases.


SeraphAlford wrote:
I simply think that the specific deistic argument you presented was silly. God doesn’t have to –need- to do something before he does it. Once again, if he is all powerful than he can act without necessity. So, why shouldn’t he?

Well, the argument goes like this:
If God created the Laws of Nature to rule the universe - that would've already set the chain of events of fate in a predetermined path. By divine intervention through miracles, God would have to alter the chain of events in his original plan.

The reason a plan is changed is because the plan is bad/imperfect. If a plan is imperfect, then the creator of the plan must be imperfect.

Thus, if God is perfect, then everything he does would be perfect - including the original plan of the universe since the creation of the universe.

EDIT:
Furthermore, the existence of miracles/divine intervention would invalidate the Laws of Nature. (not to mention conservative of mass and energy)

At that point, we might as well throw out all the scientific branches because science would be totally useless - we won't ever know if God decides to sporadically change the universe around via miracles.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 9/5/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

As an atheist I always thought that prayer was stupid and ridiculous. I mean, if your child has an asthma attack you can pray and hope for the best, or you can bring them to the doctor for treatment. The latter option is considerably more tangible. The former doesn’t even have a scientific basis…or does it?

I recently read in my text book for one of my college classes here at EOSC that prayer has been scientifically/statistically proven to be effective.


Research also reveals that prayers likewise has powerful positive effects. In a double-blind experiment in San Francisco in which some heart patients were prayed for but others were not, patients for whom no one was praying were five times more likely to require antibiotics, three times more likely to develop pulmonary edema, and TWELVE times more likely to require a mechanical ventilator.


The first idea that comes to mind is that this is just a coincidence. However, the experiment has and can be repeated with the same results every time.

Well, I just thought that people here might be interested in discussing this topic. I certainly found it interesting.



it doesnt matter with prayin or not... its just those people who pray believes that they will heal due to the help of god.... but when a person really want to do somethin... its like hypnotize your body to produce more chemicals that will help you heal faster....so thus prayin doesnt really matter... its just that the person's belief in being able to heal cause him/her to heal faster...

anyways.... you can try this experiment.... when you have a child.... tell him/her youre stupid like a hundred times everyday and then you will notice... the child will turn out stupid....

another example would be... when someone or something you value over your life were left in a burning house... you will became like a superman and overcome your limits to save that person or thing....

bascially.... your mind gives off orders to your body to produce stuff that are more than what you needed....
3908 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Brooklyn, New York
Offline
Posted 9/5/08 , edited 9/5/08
uhm.. i believe in prayers....

Well I was taught 2 believe that God answers ur prayers in more ways than 1. But dont include me into this science vs religion debate... I hate writing long posts. Like well I pray maybe 4 times a week if I remember. I always remember 2 pray when im in great need. Sumtimes my prayers r answered sumtimes theyre not.. well maybe they were but I havent realized.

Science... i dont like science too much cuz u gotta have theories, then back up ur theories, come up with things that might disrupt the balance of nature(Global Warming?). I mean scientists dudes r smart and created great things that help mankind but also created things that destroy it. Sumtimes u just gotta have faith but theres many who dismiss this idea and think logically. Well LOGICALLY thats correct... but humans sumtimes just make things happen or stuff happens because they have faith.

lol y did I post...

dont quote if ur gonna start an argument please >_>
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/08

Intranetusa wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:
You do realize I was never validating my religion? Seriously, if you’d gone through and actually read my posts you would have realized this by now. Read the initial post-does it say anywhere within it that the study was specific to any one religion? No, because it wasn’t. Once again, I don’t think there’s anything supper natural going on here.


Well, you sure did make it seem like you were trying to validate your religion.

Explained via the following posts:

SeraphAlford wrote:
Well, the only way for free-will to exist is for a God-such as the Judeo/Christian God-to exist. People think that God’s existence nulls the existence of free-will, but that’s not necessarily true.



SeraphAlford wrote:
Because the only way to remove evil is to remove the unfavorable consequences…but, in doing this, you remove free-will.....So, he created mankind with free-will. There’s always the argument of “Well, if God knows the future then we can’t have free will,” but this argument is logically self-contradictory and scientifically false.


You had brought up 'science' to support your idea ranging from God creating mankind with free will...saying that ideas that criticize this form of God is 'logically self-contradictory and scientifically false.'


You misunderstand. I was simply discussing my beliefs with another user. Naturally, in a conversation of this genre, I also explained –why- I believed. I wasn’t validating anything. I was justifying my beliefs. Would you rather that I simply believe without logic or reason?

You’ve got this whole thing backwards. I don’t have these nominal validations because I believe, I believe because I have these so called validations.

This thread in no way promotes any specific religion. To an intellectual it doesn’t necessarily promote any religion. Actually, this thread is potentially dangerous to my religion because those prayers weren’t specific to Christianity.


In this post, you imply science and religion justify each other in similar elements of truth, and that religious elements are also scientific elements.


What post were you reading? I don’t even see where this conclusion of yours came from. What I wrote doesn’t insinuate that whatsoever.


Did you mean that some religious elements can be true, and validated by science?

That’s precisely it. Doing A is impossible unless God exists. But, it’s possible that God does exist, which means it’s technically possible that I can do A.


However, in this post, you clearly say that science does not exist without God (preferably the God you believe in) driving it.


Once again, I don’t see where you came up with this. Look, time is not kinetic. It doesn’t move, it’s a stationary dimension just like up-and-down.

Picture time as a ray.

O----------------------- >
In this illustration the O represents the singularity. Each – represents a given “moment,” or “point,” in time. The > simply points out that the line is actually longer than this.

Now then, if you look at that line you see that every moment (-) exists in cognition to the previous moment. Some moments come before others on the line, but only because their relative positioning. So, the third moment exists in cognition to the first moment.

In other word the future already exists. Our “choices,” are made rather we choose them or not, and we can’t change that which means they’re not choices at all. There’s no free will, everything is predetermined. Unless, of course, we call on the ever convenient “God card.”


This post is your strongest post yet in saying that science, such as evolution, justifies religious elements such as God(s) or religious elements through free will.


I simply said that free will doesn’t exist unless God exists. Nothing more, you added the rest on your own.


I can say the exact same for you. You're denying you've been pushing your agenda by claiming science backs your religion, but your posts imply the exact opposite. Sarcasm and some condescension as a response to hypocrisy and denial.


Except, I haven’t been doing any of those things and half of the time my posts aren’t even implying that. At least not based off the examples you gave. You’re making that conclusion based on a preconceived prejudice.


Well, the argument goes like this:
If God created the Laws of Nature to rule the universe - that would've already set the chain of events of fate in a predetermined path. By divine intervention through miracles, God would have to alter the chain of events in his original plan.

The reason a plan is changed is because the plan is bad/imperfect. If a plan is imperfect, then the creator of the plan must be imperfect.

Thus, if God is perfect, then everything he does would be perfect - including the original plan of the universe since the creation of the universe.


I’d rather not go into that right now.





10229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / spacing out looki...
Offline
Posted 9/6/08

Hitoli wrote:


lolos123 wrote:

i am evangelic and very religious even if i dont look like it


So?


idk, what do u want me to say? o.O
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.