Posted on 03/31/2006 9:09:57 AM PST by Tarkin
(2006-03-31) — A team of scientists today ended a 10-year study on the so-called “power of prayer” by concluding that God cannot be manipulated by humans, not even by scientists with a $2.4 million research grant.
The scientists also noted that their work was “sabotaged by religious zealots” secretly praying for study subjects who were supposed to receive no prayer.
The allegations came at a news conference where researchers announced their findings that intercessory prayer by two Roman Catholic religious communities and a group from the Missouri-based Unity church failed to produce better results for patients recovering from heart surgery.
“As it turns out, God was not impressed by our academic credentials, our substantial funding base, and our rigorous study protocols,” said lead researcher Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston. “I get the feeling we just spent 10 years looking through the wrong end of the telescope.”
While patients who knew they were the targets of the study’s intercessory prayer team actually had more post-operative complications, Dr. Benson admitted he failed to prevent friends and relatives from praying for the “no prayer” control group.
“It really burns me up that we worked so hard, only to be undermined by an anonymous army of intellectual weaklings on their knees,” he said.
Dr. Benson said he would now seek $10 million in grants to explore whether fire can be called down from heaven to kindle a pile of wood. The control group’s wood will be drenched in water to prevent combustion.
Your mind is closed - closed off from the infinite and confined to the narrow constraints of the here and now.
Your existence is blinkered and impoverished by your decision to cut yourself off from the 4,000 year history of Western culture in exchange for the philosophical depth and complexity that underpins the NBC weeknight comedy lineup.
The Scriptures are always new, but nothing is as old as this morning's newspaper.
thanks Pat Robertson ... But I'll stick with science over fairy tales anyday.
Oh, a snide insult - nice argument! You self-proclaimed "rationalists" always demonstrate such solid, intricate reasoning when you are desperately defending your unjustifiable prejudices. Bravo!
But I'll stick with science over fairy tales anyday.
When you are confronted with a decision and must choose between the morally right and morally wrong thing to do, do you solve your dilemma by using the quadratic equation? Or do you apply Le Chatelier's principle?
For amateur atheists like yourself "science" is just a buzzword, a slogan - not a serious concern.
It's clear that you hold to a kneejerk position you've never spent a reflective moment on.
So what modern-day tribal stories around the camp fire have you been brainwashed by?
John
14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Matthew
21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
I guess not
The fact that there are a significant number of serious scientists who believe in God makes this guy's proclamation a sham. The fact that the Bible presents a God who is knowable, and creator of a universe that is open to rational inquiry, is the foundation of western science. The "science" he pretends to defer to, would not exist were it not for belief in the God of the Bible.
Which of the apostles whom Jesus was addressing in the cited examples participated in the study?
What part of anyone don't you understand?
I like the sleight of hand you're attempting between the third person of "anyone" in verse 12 and the second person of "you" in verse 13.
And you demonstrate the fallacy of tearing random quotes from their context.
What does "having faith" mean? The level of faith required is illustrated in Matthew 17:20.
After all, as the Epistle of James points out later, even the demons believe.
Your first post was an insult, so thank you for telling me how black I am, Mr. Pot.
i know how it is with you fanatics ...
LOL! I see this sudden change of heart you've had about insulting people is something you take very seriously.
your beliefs are always right
What a meaningless statement. I take it, then, you hold your own beliefs to be wrong? Or are you a hypocrite, who thinks that my beliefs are wrong and yours are right?
and nobody is allowed to have their own opinions about religion...
I'm not contesting anyone's right to an opinion - it seems like you're contesting my right to punch holes in someone's clearly poorly-though-out opinion.
the proof is in your holier than thou self-proclaimed righteousness bible thumper replies.
Maybe you're reading a different thread - at what point did I say that I was righteous?
I do not need a scary magical boogeyman in the skies to know the difference between right and wrong.
LOL! Not only does this response make your protestations about being insulted look even more ridiculous, you're clumsily dodging the point.
I ask again: since you feel that "science" holds the same place in your life that magical boogeymen hold in mine, how do you utilize science in making moral judgments? In a boogeyman-free scenario, how do you establish criteria? Using Boyle's Law?
typical leftie response, just assume i'm an athiest ...
LOL! Yes, it's the leftists who usually take a negative view of atheism. Like those devoutly Christian leftists Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara, etc.
i never said i dont believe in something..
One can believe in "something" and still be an atheist. I know you're not strong on definitions, so I'll just point out that an atheist is a person who disbelieves in the existence of a God. If we were discussing people who do not believe in "something" I would have used the appropriate term for such a person - a nihilist.
but say any religion is right or wrong just makes that entire religion look close minded and foolish.
In other words, unless a religion specifically denies its own tenets to be true, then it is foolish?
It is the act of a fool to say that he believes in things for which there are no compelling motives of belief.
because i dont believe in your god???
No, because you can't reason your way out of a wet paper bag. There are serious arguments to be made for disbelief - but none of them involve discussing campfires or boogeymen.
That's the rhetoric of unlearned twits, not serious interlocutors.
you bible fanatics need to be a little more respectful towards everyone elses beliefs...
Think very hard before you answer this question: Was your first post to this thread one that could be characterized as having an attitude "respectful towards everyone elses [sic] beliefs"? Or are you just indulging in hypocritical whining?
believe it or not, your religion is just as insane and violent as islam.
LOL! It's a weak mind that confuses absurd statements for provocative ones.
But please - give us the names of all the Methodist suicide bombers you're aware of. Oh, and what was the address of the towers that those planes hijacked by suicidal Congregationalists destroyed?
ok, getting you to respect other peoples beliefs is about as pointless as having George Bush moderate a spelling bee.
(1) You initiated this thread with an insulting comment so you are a complete and utter hypocrite.
(2) If there is a more rote leftist MSM/Daily Kos/Michael Moore trope than insulting the President's intellect it certainly isn't coming to mind. Your mask is now fully off.
(3) I note for the record that you still cannot explain how you use science to arrive at moral criteria for life decisions. You have had a perfect opportunity to defend your belief in "science" and you've failed miserably.
no the failure seems to be on your part, you obviously cannot get a clear and objective thinker such as myself to believe in a magic man in the sky.... face it your religion is bullshit tribal stories told around a campfire... you can continue to believe stories made up by neanderthals 2000 years ago... you know, back when the world was flat... if you bathe too much your skin will fall off ... and you want to take their words for gospel??? shows how you have no problem believing whatever mommy and daddy tell you ... you are a closed minded bible thumper and will follow lemmings off of a cliff as long as it tells you to do so in the bible... Jesus was no more the son of god than David Koresh or Jim Jones.. keep following this dangerous cult that leads to nothing but violence.
Good stuff.
Looks like post #34 was aimed your way, but the poster lacked the intellectual courage to actually address it to you.
Have fun.
You claim to be a clear and objective thinker - but a truly clear and objective thinker knows that using buzzwords, slogans and epithets does not constitute a coherent argument.
face it your religion is bullshit tribal stories told around a campfire...
I'd ping the moderator for your profanity, but I would much prefer that your response be kept on the board because it illustrates the childishness of your thinking.
Just for your edification: Archimedes was a member of a tribe (specifically the Archian clan of Corinthian Syracuse), and he came up with some of his key insights into geometry and mechanics while scratching ideas in the dirt in front of a fire.
So would you agree that mechanical curvatures and the equilibrium of fluids, as well as the differentiation of mass and density are to be disbelieved as well?
Is that truly the level at which you are arguing?
you can continue to believe stories made up by neanderthals 2000 years ago...
Interesting display of ignorance:
Are you saying that you are unaware that anthropologists agree that Neanderthals ceased to exist 29,000 years ago?
Or are you saying that Jews are Neanderthals?
Or are you unaware that the Christian Scriptures written 2,000 years ago were written by educated multilingual Jewish professionals in the most advanced urban environments of their day?
you know, back when the world was flat...
The earliest Christians knew the world was round - they were well-acquainted with the work of Eratosthenes. The early Church fathers referred to the world's roundness quite frequently. At this point you're just making stuff up.
if you bathe too much your skin will fall off ...
Now you reveal your utter cluelessness - ancient Judaism was known for its frequent ritual bathings and washings. And quite famously, one is intiated into Christianity through baptism. Do you know what baptism is?
Start discussing facts, instead of fabrications.
and you want to take their words for gospel???
Are you even aware of the etymology of the word "gospel"?
shows how you have no problem believing whatever mommy and daddy tell you ...
If I believed only what my parents taught me, I wouldn't be a Christian right now.
Of course - you don't realize how silly what you are saying is. To follow your logic, if someone's parents are scientific humanists then it is wrong to agree with them and scientific humanism is false because someone, somehere learned it from their parents.
you are a closed minded bible thumper and will follow lemmings off of a cliff as long as it tells you to do so in the bible...
As I said before, you can level as many personal insults as you like - I really don't mind in the slightest - but they will never prove your case.
If my viewpoint is so lemminglike and yours is so vastly intellectually superior, please enlighten my ignorance: make a case for "science" as you imagine it.
On the merits.
Jesus was no more the son of god than David Koresh or Jim Jones..
Again, just because you assert something doesn't mean you have proved it.
Since you're such an accomplished scientist, why don't you prove for us - scientifically, of course - that Jesus of Nazareth was not the only begotten Son of God?
We'd all love to hear it.
keep following this dangerous cult that leads to nothing but violence.
LOL!
Ah yes, those vicious, violent souls like Mother Theresa. And Dietrich Bonhoffer. And Albert Schweitzer. And Raoul Wallenberg. And Charles de Foucauld. My, how horrible if I were to become as bloodthirsty as such dangerous role models!
Shall I adopt the cult of science instead? And profess the peaceful scientific atheism of Lenin (5 million slaughtered), Hitler (12 million slaughtered), Stalin (25 million slaughtered), Mao (60 million slaughtered), Pol Pot (2 million slaughtered), etc.?
What a joke you are.
More people were killed in the name of science from 1920-1960 that were killed in the name of Christ from 33 AD to the present time.
Number of believers in "science" killed by Christians: 0.
Number of believers in Christ killed by believers in "science": at least 50 million.
BTW, thanks to Skooz for pinging me to your cowardly post in the first place, you gutless wonder.
Correction: Modern Soviet scholars put the number of those killed by Stain at 40 million. The best estimates of those killed by Mao are around 45 - 60 million.
BTW, that is a major league butt whoopin'.
Well done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.