Does prayer work? - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
View Poll Results: Does prayer work???
Prayer does not work, there is no god to listen. 15 17.05%
Prayer works, God hears us and moves. 48 54.55%
I am not sure, it seems to matter somehow though. 21 23.86%
Hug Cubetor. 4 4.55%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:13 PM   #21
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
God knew they were doing the study, and he jinxed it

Hey, the canned religious response. Hence why I don't argue religion very often, I'm always on the defensive side arguing my reason against a fantasy world. I can't win, so I don't bother.

Like I've said 100 times, if religion brings you happiness, more power to you. The reason we're here is to be happy, so if church makes you happy, then that is awesome. I'd rather lay on the couch for an hour on sunday and watch football, that makes me happy. And yes Kerwin, I know being religious involves more then going to church once a week. I went to church and was "religious" for 10 years.
Ok, I'm outta this thread
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:14 PM   #22
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
here you go, Harvard medical study does 10 year study on prayer. People who are prayed for, and they realize it are worse off.



Prayer & Healing

The Verdict is in and the Results are Null

by Michael Shermer
American Heart Journal
April 2006

In a long-awaited comprehensive scientific study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of 1,802 patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery in six different hospitals, prayers offered by strangers had no effect. In fact, contrary to common belief, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications such as abnormal heart rhythms, possibly the result of anxiety caused by learning that they were being prayed for and thus their condition was more serious than anticipated.

The study, which cost $2.4 million (most of which came from the John Templeton Foundation), was begun almost a decade ago and was directed by Harvard University Medical School cardiologist Dr. Herbert Benson and published in The American Heart Journal, was by far the most rigorous and comprehensive study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of patients ever conducted. In addition to the numerous methodological flaws in the previous research corrected for in the Benson study, Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of the forthcoming book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, explained:

The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion.

The 1,802 patients were divided into three groups, two of which were prayed for by members of three congregations: St. Paul’s Monastery in St. Paul, Minnesota; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachusetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City. The prayers were allowed to pray in their own manner, but they were instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.” Prayers began the night before the surgery and continued daily for two weeks after. Half the prayer-recipient patients were told that they were being prayed for while the other half were told that they might or might not receive prayers. The researchers monitored the patients for 30 days after the operations.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the prayed-for and non-prayed-for groups. Although the following findings were not statistically significant, 59% of patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications, compared with 51% of those who were uncertain whether they were being prayed for or not; and 18% in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications such as heart attack or stroke, compared with 13% in the group that received no prayers.

This study is particularly significant because Herbert Benson has long been sympathetic to the possibility that intercessory prayer can positively influence the health of patients. His team’s rigorous methodologies overcame the numerous flaws that called into question previously published studies. The most commonly cited study in support of the connection between prayer and healing is:

Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81 (1998): 826–829.

The two best studies on the methodological problems with prayer and healing include the following:

Richard Sloan, E. Bagiella, and T. Powell. 1999. “Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine,” The Lancet. Feb. 20, Vol. 353: 664–667; and,

John T. Chibnall, Joseph M. Jeral, Michael Cerullo. 2001. “Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer.” Archives of Internal Medicine, Nov. 26, Vol. 161: 2529–2536. www.archinternmed.com

The most significant flaws in all such studies include the following:

Fraud
In 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine published a study by three Columbia University researchers claiming that prayer for women undergoing in-vitro fertilization resulted in a pregnancy rate of 50%, double that of women who did not receive prayer. Media coverage was extensive. ABC News medical correspondent Dr. Timothy Johnson, for example, reported, “A new study on the power of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results; but many physicians remain skeptical.” One of those skeptics was a University of California Clinical Professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics named Bruce Flamm, who not only found numerous methodological errors in the experiment, but also discovered that one of the study’s authors, Daniel Wirth (AKA “John Wayne Truelove”), is not an M.D., but an M.S. in parapsychology who has since been indicted on felony charges for mail fraud and theft, for which he pled guilty. The other two authors have refused comment, and after three years of inquires from Flamm the journal removed the study from its website and Columbia University launched an investigation.

Lack of Controls
Many of these studies failed to control for such intervening variables as age, sex, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, marital standing, degree of religiosity, and the fact that most religions have sanctions against such insalubrious behaviors as sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drug abuse, and smoking. When such variables are controlled for, the formerly significant results disappear. One study on recovery from hip surgery in elderly women failed to control for age; another study on church attendance and illness recovery did not consider that people in poorer health are less likely to attend church; a related study failed to control for levels of exercise.

Outcome Differences
In one of the most highly publicized studies of cardiac patients prayed for by born-again Christians, 29 outcome variables were measured but on only six did the prayed-for group show improvement. In related studies, different outcome measures were significant. To be meaningful, the same measures need to be significant across studies, because if enough outcomes are measured some will show significant correlations by chance.

File-Drawer Problem
In several studies on the relationship between religiosity and mortality (religious people allegedly live longer), a number of religious variables were used, but only those with significant correlations were reported. Meanwhile, other studies using the same religiosity variables found different correlations and, of course, only reported those. The rest were filed away in the drawer of non-significant findings. When all variables are factored in together, religiosity and mortality show no relationship.

Operational Definitions
When experimenting on the effects of prayer, what, precisely, is being studied? For example, what type of prayer is being employed? (Are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and Shaman prayers equal?) Who or what is being prayed to? (Are God, Jesus, and a universal life force equivalent?) What is the length and frequency of the prayer? (Are two 10-minute prayers equal to one 20-minute prayer?) How many people are praying and does their status in the religion matter? (Is one priestly prayer identical to ten parishioner prayers?) Most prayer studies either lack such operational definitions, or there is no consistency across studies in such definitions.

Theological Implications
The ultimate fallacy of all such studies is theological. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He should not need to be reminded or inveigled that someone needs healing. Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion

No one cares about any of this. The bible tells you everything if you read it right. Its alot more valuble than anything scientists can prove. So if evolutions true. How were monkeys made??? or apes or whatever scientists think we came from?? Let me guess they just where.
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:16 PM   #23
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
I don't think God believes in your scientific method.
x2
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:16 PM   #24
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.J.Hall View Post
No one cares about any of this. The bible tells you everything if you read it right. Its alot more valuble than anything scientists can prove. So if evolutions true. How were monkeys made??? or apes or whatever scientists think we came from?? Let me guess they just where.
I only have deep thinking conversations with people who are at least half intelligent. This is why I respond to Kerwins posts, and not yours.

Just to save you the effort.
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:17 PM   #25
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
I don't think scientists believe in god.
Nicholas Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein

...Just from the first page I clicked on from Google.
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:17 PM   #26
FlatFender
Tap Tap Splat
 
FlatFender's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 15,775
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
no you haven't
Yes. I have.
While on a mission trip in Peru.
FlatFender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:19 PM   #27
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
I only have deep thinking conversations with people who are at least half intelligent. This is why I respond to Kerwins posts, and not yours.

Just to save you the effort.

At least half intelligence huh? Is that all you can do man is insults. I dint insult you. Come on, can your scientists prove god is not real? can your scientists prove hell is not real? Come on show us some facts.
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:21 PM   #28
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatFender View Post
Yes. I have.
While on a mission trip in Peru.
Thats awesome. I bet that was really cool to see.
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:22 PM   #29
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
Nicholas Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein

...Just from the first page I clicked on from Google.
wow them are pretty famous scientists.
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:22 PM   #30
88mudder
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-06
Location: waterford michigan
Posts: 3,678
iTrader: (29)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 88mudder Send a message via Skype™ to 88mudder
Default

hell yaaaaaaaa i love god and god loves me! im down lol
88mudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:25 PM   #31
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.J.Hall View Post
At least half intelligence huh? Is that all you can do man is insults. I dint insult you. Come on, can your scientists prove god is not real? can your scientists prove hell is not real? Come on show us some facts.
If I were to rank you in intelligence, on a 1-10 scale, I would choose between 1.3 and 1.4
I don't have any scientists, so I cannot answer your question


And for the record, people don't set out to prove something doesn't exist, people prove something does. Show me proof that prayer works, and I will believe you :)
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:30 PM   #32
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
If I were to rank you in intelligence, on a 1-10 scale, I would choose between 1.3 and 1.4
I don't have any scientists, so I cannot answer your question


And for the record, people don't set out to prove something doesn't exist, people prove something does. Show me proof that prayer works, and I will believe you :)

Dude i dont care how smart you think i am. so drop it.
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:31 PM   #33
88mudder
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-06
Location: waterford michigan
Posts: 3,678
iTrader: (29)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 88mudder Send a message via Skype™ to 88mudder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.J.Hall View Post
Dude i dont care how smart you think i am. so drop it.
:dunie:
88mudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:34 PM   #34
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
Nicholas Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein

...Just from the first page I clicked on from Google.
Looks like you're looking at some religious propaganda :)


I looked up two of your scientists


Newton:


"Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[24][25][26] But the unforeseen theological consequence of his conception of God, as Leibniz pointed out, was that God was now entirely removed from the world’s affairs, since the need for intervention would only evidence some imperfection in God’s creation, something impossible for a perfect and omnipotent creator.[27] Leibniz's theodicy cleared God from the responsibility for "l'origine du mal" by making God removed from participation in his creation. The understanding of the world was now brought down to the level of simple human reason, and humans, as Odo Marquard argued, became responsible for the correction and elimination of evil"




Einstein:

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]." This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness. He never included any higher beings in any of his work.
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:37 PM   #35
88mudder
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-06
Location: waterford michigan
Posts: 3,678
iTrader: (29)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 88mudder Send a message via Skype™ to 88mudder
Default

CC rules this thread!
88mudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:38 PM   #36
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.J.Hall View Post
Dude i dont care how smart you think i am. so drop it.
Would you walk down the street and talk to a bum about economics, and foreign affairs? Probably not. Usually it is only beneficial for both parties to have a conversation when both have average intelligence, or higher.

This is why I choose not to engage in conversation with you.
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:40 PM   #37
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
Would you walk down the street and talk to a bum about economics, and foreign affairs? Probably not. Usually it is only beneficial for both parties to have a conversation when both have average intelligence, or higher.

This is why I choose not to engage in conversation with you.

ha well at least I can admit im not the smartest person in the world and dont still go arond just playing smart like you STILL dude.
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:41 PM   #38
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 88mudder View Post
CC rules this thread!
Reason can never rule a religious conversation.

And in the words of one smart lady,

"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind." -A Rand
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:41 PM   #39
guest
.
 
Join Date: 12-14-06
Location: .
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to guest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 88mudder View Post
CC rules this thread!
haha the only thing he rules is his bitsecks swinger party:)
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 09:42 PM   #40
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.44512 seconds with 81 queries