Martinez19:


Ever heard a pastor say to his members "which report shall you believe? The doctor's report or God's report?" and the members respond "God's!" or the pastor say "... despite what the doctors say..." and the members keep nodding their heads, like agama lizards, in agreement as the pastors preach on. The irony is that these pastors don't applied this to themselves, even christians too. Why make a mockery of medical science in this manner to express the superiority of yahweh when you will still consult a doctor in the time of need? Some pastors even say that scientists know nothing and God is their master (master scientists) yet they make use of the results of these scientists justifying their hypocrisy with the nonsense of "science is yahweh's provision and medical science is yahweh's cure to man."

The problem is if you will still turn to doctors, then don't shame them and their craft. And for the intellectual failures that are going say "medical science is Yahweh's provision for illnesses", I put it to you that those words portray a God with a misplacement of priority or bad methodology given that he is perfect and all powerful. Why not heal diseases right away while allow your children to squander money on treatments, drugs, surgery and the likes? Why make medicine the sole provision given that medicine is limited but an all powerful god can cure all diseases? Do you know how many christians died from malaria before antimalarial drugs were invented? What was yahweh doing when these christians were perishing from malaria? Folding his arms?Today, any christian who has terminal cancer dies. So why a provision that is limited instead of your raw unlimited power which is available?

That's poor methodology. Christians should stop all these nonsense and admit that the bible supports healing by faith alone rather than try to cover it up with "medical science is God's provision". They should be clear on where they stand and stop being hypocritical and confusing people. Up science! Up doctors!

Yes. Thank God for doctors and science. Unfortunately for you, medical science is not in any opposition to trusting in God. There are different levels of trust and faith, and whichever one any Christian is at is fine, so far as he realizes that God is for him and not against him. Christians believe the dysfunction of this world caused by sin’s entry into creation is the cause of sickness and disease.

And God wishes us to prosper in health, even as our souls prosper.

frank317:


Isnt this what we have been saying? Religion or no religion... believe in God or not does not make any ones life better. Thats the simple point we want to prove to ya all who go about lying to people that their life will be better if they start beliving... i am glad u are gradually learning sha

Long time Frank.

To the bolded, it all depends on what one means by “making life better”. If by better, you mean belief in God gives life context and hinge and meaning, then belief in God does exactly that. So you’re wrong or dishonest if you, as an atheist claims your life has the same dimensions as that of a theist. Where does the context and meaning of your life come from? Where does the context of your relationship with others come from? And your morality? And your reason for living?

See?

And the quote from G.K Chesterton once more.

"The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it... As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton

CatfishBilly:

A classic case of "Cognitive Dissonance" is preventing Spacetacular and Joshthefirst from answering this question .

sorry for taking so long, but the answer to your question is yes of course.

Here's a noteworthy reply to one examining the Christian belief by Gideon Odoma.

My (Very Long Reply) to Julie.

Dear Julie,

I understand your concerns. I feel your frustration.

It is laughable, even though it's pathetic, that supposed intelligent people whine on and on (thanks to the internet) about why they don't believe in God or why Christianity isn't right; yet, they offer no convincing 'grounding' for their denunciations.

A little example:
If I say you got your sums wrong because you wrote 500 as the answer to '200 plus 200'; and I insist your answer should have been 400, I do not mean I prefer 400 to 500 as the answer to the sum. I mean something deeper than that. I mean that in an objective, verifiable way, 200 + 200 comes up to 400 - and to nothing else. Certain things cannot be resolved by mere tastes and preferences.

If you prefer Eba to Amala for lunch next wednesday, that's fine, but in resolving truth claims, preferences and/or emotions cannot be trusted to get us to truth.

Floating is bliss!?
It is inept how some internet critics think their uncertainty about truth claims in matters of religion is a superior disposition to the confidence of religious believers who have reasons to be certain about their religious convictions. If Christian morality, for instance, is wrong, you don't only have to show the right alternative to it, but also the standard, the yardstick by which you decided that your proposed alternative is true. You also have to show why the yardstick is legitimate.

Merely mouthing things like 'progressives' or 'enlightenment', or 'broad-minded', or 'liberated' won't take us anywhere close to truth. As you may know, 'time' also does not change a historical fact. It is silly to call me antiquated for believing that one of my forefathers was called Odoma. The mere passage of time and a thousand scientific inventions since he died, do not change that fact.

The Crux
Jesus died. He was He buried. He rose from the dead. These are truth claims. They don't "depend on how you see them". They don't depend on how you feel, or whether any one else has ever had a similar experience. A truth claim (located in history) may sound arrogant, intolerant and exclusivistic; it matters little. What matters is the truth. Did it happen as claimed? If Jesus died and rose again, that's a real game changer there. And if you desire to write Christianity off, you must investigate this claim. Because, it is a matter of life and death. Your own, I mean.

The writers of the New Testament are very clear about this: our faith depends on the truth, the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus. "If Christ be not raised (from the dead, then), your faith is vain..." (1 Corinthians 15:17). If He was not raised, we can close shop and go our ways, because, on the Christian narrative, that's the pivotal issue.

However, if Jesus is alive, having been raised from the dead following His crucifixion, He becomes the most reliable voice to listen to - in matters of life, death and life after death. Also, His precepts for mankind, codified as the New Testament, becomes a code in a class all of its own.

The bible is clear: Jesus' resurrection from the dead is proof of God's unmatched approval of His life as the 'pattern life' for mankind and as our only pathway to God.

In other words, the proof that Christianity is true is the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is also a major proof of the legitimacy of Christian exclusivity. As paul said: "(God) has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. HE HAS GIVEN PROOF of this to everyone BY raising him (Jesus) from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)

So, Julie, before you let anyone make you dismiss Christianity as just another religion, investigate the central claim it makes, "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Will you investigate these things for yourself? I can recommend a reading list if you'd like me to. But you'll have to investigate it for yourself.

Many people (excluding you, I hope) will have none of these. They don't want to do the hard work. They don't want to investigate the facts. They'll rather read sensational, non credible, non academic, non historical gabbage peddled by revisionists. Having been fed such trash, I see them as self-made victims, epistemologically emasculated, yet masquerading on social networks as enlightened, informed religious critics.

These epistemologically homeless critics just criticize Christianity but offer no reasonable, coherent alternative. They only know what they disbelieve, they can't articulate what they believe - majority of them. Here, I will leave you in the hands of a far more competent figure. Let G. K. Chesterton speak:

“The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it... As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Enough. It's a long reply. Looking forward to your response.

Gideon

#ChristiansLikeChristians

cc: plaetton, kay17, catfishbilly, deepsight, alwaystrue, MrAnony1, jayriginal, jackbizzle.

LightandDarkness:


Bacterial resistance actually does occur through the addition of new genetic information via plasmids or bacteriophages. Bacterial resistance does also occur through random mutations, bacteria with mutations conferring resistance are selected for in the presence of antibiotics. You are right in saying that these mutations also result in a reduction of pathogenicity however in the immediate environment those genes offer protection which is why those bacteria survive, however antibiotic resistance still provides an overall benefit, the bacteria might replicate more slowly but is now less likely to be killed off bty antibiotics.

I think the problems here are: 1. You see the genome as exact and fixed meanwhile the bases in the genome are constantly changing even in essential genes which is why we have variant alleles. 2. Mutations are neither inherently good or bad, they are a reality of the genome.

Transfer of resistance genes through plasmids or transposons don't count, as it is still the admixtered genes transfered, there is no generation of any new genetic information.

My reply to your percieved problems
1. I have not and never seen the genome as exact and fixed. I wonder where you got this conclusion from

2. Understand what I mean by "good" mutations: I mean mutations that drastically add to the overall complexity and sophistication of an organism, I mean beneficial FUNCTIONAL ADDITIONS, transforming it into a different family or kind all together without causing any loss or disadvantage in it's overall make up.

You see, macroevolution is fantasically improbable because the very foundation of it's suggestion has never been demonstrated. Take a look at antibacterial resistance, mutations that damage the genome cause new preferable traits, but they damage the genome all the same, reducing pathogenicity of the organisms and even causing loss of function in some cases. Damaging mutations cannot be the basis for molecules to man evolution. Impractical. Not just that, the "new information" of resistance is not new, but simply a scrambling or corruption of existing information.

Macroevolution needs the generation of new function, and not just small function, drastic functional development. An organism had to develop the ability to convert sunlight and co2 into sugar, another had to convert sugar to energy, another had to develop mechanisms enabling it to capture light as a visual stimulus and turn it into an interpretable image in it's brain. All these are ultra structural processes, and their sub-mechanisms and proteins and sub genetic elements will be selected away before any viable function takes place. See?

Darwin was wrong. He was ignorant of the mechanisms of change in organisms and genomics that we know today

TLuzzie:
You didn't answer my question.

Your question does not apply to the topic, I simply showed you how it didn't apply to science clashing with religion, and besides, you already made up your mind, and successfully derailed the thread. Start another thread and clearly state your question and it's purpose and maintain an open mind and I'll gladly clarify and answer

TLuzzie:
I've read your previous comments and none answered the question I asked, unless you don't understand the question. There are people who follow exactly what Jesus said in the scriptures, and will choose prayer OVER medical intervention to demonstrate their faith in God and show their unflinching trust in his power, only to end up harming themselves in the process. What do you think of such Christians? Are they wrong, even though Jesus told them that they can perform wonders and get anything they want, as long as they have the faith?

This is not a case of science vs religion. Christian religion has never declared medicine futile. So stop trying to put them against each other.

LightandDarkness:



Bacterial resistance is a product of selection pressure, like any "self-defense" mechanism. Bacteria sometimes express entirely new proteins or upregulating the production of existing proteins to combat the mechanisms of antibiotics which is only possible with a change in the bacterial genome that can arise through random mutations. Antibiotic use presents as selection pressure killing off vulnerable bacteria and leaving resistant bacteria to thrive, these bacteria then pass on resistance genes to other bacteria, essentially why we are running out if antibiotics. Resistance also occurs in viruses like HIV too. Pretty much what NPComplete said but you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand.

bacterial resistance is not an example of completely new beneficial information being added to the genome, if that's what you're trying to say.
Most of the time mutations even decrease the pathogenicity or virulence of said bacteria/viruses. Mutations in this case only corrupt the existing information of genome, chancely granting it escape against the targets of certain antibiotics.

This is not nearly enough to explain the variety of life we see today, neither is it enough for a trampoline of assumption and extrapolation.

LightandDarkness:


Macroevolution has been- I will rephrase for your benefit-
significantly substantiated. We have fossil evidence that shows different species in transition, we have DNA analysis that infers close genetic relationships with other primates, finally evidence of micro evolution is also proof as macroevolution as the product of several microevolutions. So to speak. It was speculation when Darwin proposed it but certainly not now. I'm not quoting science unduly, Google anything I have said.

And I argue the "complexities" of the genome are the product of thousands if not Billions of years of evolutionary processes. Now you're making an assumption which of course is where we fundamentally disagree, you would say it was designed, I will say it wasn't although admittedly I cannot prove it's exact origins.

The fossil evidence shows a lot of things, but not species in transition. All examples hammered upon are either variations within species, or incomplete data(according to your folk). You can Google this yourself. Close genetic relationships with other animals don't necessarily mean we graduated from any same ancestor.

Macroevolution is a fantasical jump. Microevolution is adaptation, but species will always be within the same kind, or family. Any extrapolation is improbable nonsense, and could only occur as a miracle of transcendent proportions.

Take for example that new beneficial genetic information, has never been shown to arise in any mutation, which is the bed rock of macroevolution. Instead, the opposite is much more common, mutations resulting in loss of information, mutations conferring only relative edges of survival in exchange for qualitative and quantitative defects in the genome.

TLuzzie:
Have you ever heard of people who put faith healing over medical science because they believe in the efficacy of prayer and have absolute faith in it, as demanded by Jesus? Do you know what tends to be the end result? Many Christian parents have KILLED their babies because they trust Jesus that their prayers will work, and as a Christian you can't reprimand them for this behaviour since they simply followed the teachings of your religion, which you've been trying to deny here, because you know that it is HARMFUL bullsh!t! Science and Religion may be seperate like you said, but what happens when they CLASH? As a Christian doctor (to be), whose side will you take? That of science or religion? This is the entire thrust of JackBizzle's challenge. He merely gave those questions in page 1 to make you catch a glimpse of what he's getting at. Those questions were NOT the main thing. But some Spacetacular was 'too smart' to get the crux of the thread, and was busy jumping around painting the whole place in reeking blood as she suffers menstrual cramps, accusing everyone of illogic, only to end up exhibiting gross dishonesty in her 'debate' with CatfishBilly.

Again, I ask, whose side do you take when Science and religion CLASH? To the best of my knowledge, Science has ALWAYS emerged victorious whenever such happens.

read my previous comments on this thread for clarification. I'm not in the business of repeating myself too much.


God gave human beings an intellect, and medicine is a blessing, not a curse. But it has it's limits, from there people can trust in the healing power of God.

LightandDarkness:


The bold I agree with, yes we have not been able to explicitly show DNA could or did originate from RNA or the early earth environment, this is a gap. However this "DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution" is not true, DNA has been used to construct phylogenetic trees that show and prove that all life originate from a LUCA and greater divergence from the last common ancestor is evidenced by less genetic similarity, to put it basically.

The argument itself is based on the absence of knowledge, we do not know where DNA came from therefore it must be intelligently created.

DNA has not proved any such thing. All people have done is speculate. Macroevolution has not been proved. New beneficial information has never been shown to arise from natural processes in any genome. Don't make any assumptions, and don't quote science unduly sir.

And the argument is not based on the absence of knowledge, I reiterate. It is based on our knowledge of the genius and complexity of the genome itself. The argument grows stronger as our knowledge of the intricacies of the life code increases.

The genome could only have been designed, it's quite obvious, just the way language has an obvious connection to a mind behind it, the genomic information, as epic as it is, points to serious transcendent intelligence.

felixomor:


Thanks for this re-clarification
I just finished explaining DNA to that dude on another thread and I kind of confirmed he knows nothing on it.
At first, he was surprised that I compared DNA with codes

Now, Imagine someone saying DNA can arise from "natural processes"

Where do these people get this type of confidence to spread misinformation?

I honestly don't know oh.

LightandDarkness:

First off these comparisons are false equivalencies. Comparing something, DNA and the genome, which originated through billions of years of natural selection to an obviously designed code, this code argument is like a repeat of the watchmaker analogy.

The genome and DNA is naturally self-replicating, naturally self-repairing, naturally passed on, and is key to evolution. There are regions of DNA where the order of the AT/GC pairs are irrelevant because they have no function and these regions are highly susceptible to mutations. There are regions of DNA that are highly conserved and whose base pair order are almost always exact, these regions are highly conserved and mutations rarely occur or are rarely replicated in this region. This part is a good example of natural selection, mutations in those highly conserved specific regions of DNA are possible and can also be lethal, once a mutation occurs in these sequences the organism will die and thus cannot or is unlikely to pass it's genes. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that the DNA we now possess is a product of hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapiens with genetics detrimental to survival dying and those with more beneficial genetic traits surviving to pass on their DNA and so on and so on, which is how it is imagined early life developed and survived. An immediate example of natural selection and micro-evolutionn pertinent to Africa is the sickle cell gene. The sickle-cell gene is more prevalent in areas where malaria is endemic, why? because carrying a mutant sickle cell gene causes increased resistance to malaria therefore AS individuals are less susceptible to the disease. However this mutation is also proof that evolution is not perfect because possessing 2 mutant genes-SS-results in a condition that naturally leads to reduced survival but, again, also ensures that such individuals are less likely to survive live long enough in the wild to pass these genes to offspring. All amazing considering Darwin himself did not even know DNA existed and yet was proven right by DNA.

I am raving a lot here but essentially my point here is DNA can arise through natural processes, DNA maintains it's fidelity through natural processes, DNA offers evidence of natural selection and macro and micro evolution . Furthermore though the current thought is that DNA was not the first carrier of genetic information but rather RNA was, life switched to DNA simply because it is better at storing genetic information than RNA. Now I will acknowledge that current scientific knowledge has not figured out every step of this process, but considering that the theory of evolution was developed in 1859, DNA was discovered in 1869, and the double helix structure in 1962 we have come a long way. But if you are relying on gaps in knowledge as the base of your faith and argument what happens when those gaps are closed?.

Anyway I hope I have been able to convince you of something and not confuse you. If you are a paper scientist that doesn't understand DNA please avoid talking about nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous DNA. Thanks.

oga, you've truly said a lot, but the bolded clinches the biggest holes and assumptions on your comment.

DNA has not been shown to arise by natural means. DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution, and DNA could not have arisen without external influence. It is highly improbable to impossible. I don't have time to quote real scientific sources.

We don't rely on gaps of knowledge for faith, our faith is based on knowledge itself of obvious facts of nature. Design screams at us from all angles, but some unreasonably stick to any other, maybe because of the implications of Intelligent creation I don't know.

sonofluc1fer:

Don't just say it is 'destructive'.. Show how it is. Remember that phraae 'everything under the sun is meaningless'. Sure you won't. An atheist wrote it.

Dont quote scripture out of context now.
It is destructive, because if taken to it's logical conclusions it means nothing makes sense and all is absurd. I will show it. (I have before)

sonofluc1fer:

Show how you reached this conclusion. It seems you are getting into that habit of attackinf arguments no one made.

what happens if life is a pointless accident? It means that our births and deaths are futile, it means everything we strive for in life is doomed hopelessness, it means everything about human society is eventually empty, pitiful wailings against cold nihility, our science, our arts, our education, our love, hate, fear, courage; there is no point to our relationships, etc, see? Nihility. Futility. Creating any form of any meaning is a huge waste of time and hustle for a futile existence. What a wicked irony life is with this sort of thinking. It is destructive to the mind and any form of meaningful development of humanity, how can you seek development and any sort of peace when our civilization and sciety and even our evolution is pointless futility, death our mocker?

This is why I believe you aren't truly honest with your very own thinking, because you still hustle and have dreams, you still have hope for a better tomorrow, inspite of the chasm of empty nothingness you believe laughs at all of our fates.

sonofluc1fer:

You are not just theist.. You are Christian. That comes with ideas that will contradict them. That they promise much, doesnt make them true. Like prayers, these promises are subjective.


A good belief, with great intentions, I must say. If that makes you happy, good. BUT mangoes dont turn to poison because you find apples to be tastier.
These are all subjective feelings, just like your purpose.

permit me to claim, since you make claims. I have seen objective reality and truth. I am not confused about life and purpose, I have proved these truths in my life, and I experience the rich relationship with God daily. Do you think I enjoy empty rituals and religion? Or pray to a God who has no voice? No. Convincing me to unbelief or doubt is a waste, as I cannot doubt a presence I feel as much as my own.

sonofluc1fer:

And therein lies the problem.. Bred in the cage of faith all your life, you have no idea how a life without faith is possible.
Your ignorance causes your fear and hatred. A life without God can be a life of purpose... One you create.

I fear sometimes, but my fear isn't of other beliefs. Lol. I do not hate anyone, but I hate wrong ideology, and the influence of darkness I believe convinces men to independent rebellion.

And I say you have faith in your"beliefs", because what you think about life, especially it's origin is actually "belief", never supported by any fact or truth of any kind, you subscribe to nihility without even taking hold of it's message to the full.

sonofluc1fer:

For me, I have a dream to create an academy where I can provide kids the opportunities in education I didnt have when growing up. I don't need to believe in God to know that there are benefits a society derives when its citizens are better educated.

Do I feel fear, doubt, hope, disappointment? I do. I'm human too. Rejecting God doesn't mean denying my humanity. If anything, I understand my 'humanness' - - hope this is the right word - - much better.

I'm glad you dream, but I believe you are confused. A nihilist does not hope, all dreams end in futility. Education is pointless, society is a weak mockery of humanity. Humanity itself is a wicked product of an accident called life. This is what it is to have the unfounded belief of an accidental and purposeless existence. Death, the black outcome of the cruel joke of life, awaits all sense of purpose you may want to create for yourself, all dreams, and all hope.
If our fathers subscribed to this, we would not have had anything like science or society or development today.

Thank God for your humanity and your dreams and your hope. It all points to the yearning of your inward man for something more out of life, a paradox and contradiction to the very worldview you hold dear.

sonofluc1fer:

I am not Christian. I am neither Jewish nor Gentile. I know I am not a failed clay product of a Jewish god.
I appreciate life more and nature too.. And knowledge quenched my fears.

Maybe I might be wrong on God. But life got much better when I embraced hell.

And I appreciate and respect you. Humanity is not a failed product, but an object of God's love. You're wrong on God, he isn't Jewish, and life will begin when you truly embrace his grace

sonofluc1fer:

Seriously. I wonder why many are uncomfortable with this other. Atheism, on its own, is an empty philosophy, just like theism too.

Our ability to create meaning and derive pleasurable feelings doesn't make life meaningful. At the end, whether theist or atheist, we will all be forgotten. Our marks on earth would be erased. We just random instances in time's unending cycles.

Whatever meaning or joy you derive in this short existence you call being alive, is just fleeting. Atheism says its ends here. Theism says no.. There has to be something better.. Or worse if you picked the wrong God.

This very destructive thinking, is the result of your atheistic way of life, and even as you irrationally apply it to theism, I commend your slight honesty.

Humanity itself is futile, and life is an unnecessary and accidental wickedness based on your thinking.

Where you are wrong is your applying it to the theist, especially one like me. Unlike you who believes in twisted and sadistic originlessness, I believe that in the beginning, God with a very definite purpose created the universe, including me, I believe my life actually counts, and death is not finality you see.

You on the other hand believe pointless and very dangerous and even unfounded sheet.
Yes, we're both on different spectra of faith. Mine is founded, rational and safe, and yours is quite sad, and unfounded (even science has no established theorem on the origin of life.)

Seun:

God probably* doesn't exist.


Atheists don't say life has no meaning. Who've you been talking to? Human beings have the ability to create meaning in their own lives.


Atheists care because they are decent human beings who feel sad that their fellow humans are investing their precious lives in false beliefs.

Here's a quote from a popular atheist who is a friend:

sonofluc1fer: Oh and yes, life is pointless. You can believe in the after-life, if that gives you a sense of purpose and usefulness...

It was taken from here

And atheism, taken to it's rational conclusions, is a tale of hopeless piontlessness, and no amount of delusion of meaning can overcome the gaping valley of it's nihilism. A pointless, meaningless existence

sonofluc1fer:

If its readily measurable, how can you say it works? How do you know your prayers work? That would be impossible to know. You really don't know if prayer works or not. But one thing is for sure.. Prayer feels good. Whether it works doesnt really matter, does it?

note the word 'readily'. and i was speaking in a scale pertaining to the research. prayer works for me. ive had countless prayers answered.

CatfishBilly:

So, which one is more reliable?
Objectivity or subjectivity when dealing with facts?

objectivity of course, when dealing with scientific facts. the templeton study is incoherent in my opinion, because prayer is not readily measureable and very subjective. there are different kinds of prayer.

sonofluc1fer:

spacetacular, I'm not one of them. I'm a cute innoncent fellow.


shattap. old man.

TLuzzie:
Yahoo! I can finally comment. To hell with antispam.

---

Hahahahaha. JackBizzle has given up on his thread after someone successfully painted it with stupidity.

I wonder how CatfishBilly could help not being irritated in the face of such infuriating dishonesty. Although hopeFulLanlord's disgust is pretty obvious. Nice debate with the 'smart' Christian.

I'd rather troll than get engrossed in a debate with a moron_. The latter is irritating and annoying. The former is fun and pleasurable.

I don't think anyone cares whether you troll or debate that much. You can keep doing what makes you feel better.

CatfishBilly:

In spite of the scientific data to back up the fact that religion helps with depression, you choose not to accept it?
Why do you reject the scientific method when it comes to proving the efficacy of prayers? It works for everything else, why not prayers?

As I said there are many layers to my opinion, and interpretation of that data, prayer, is a completely subjective experience for different people, science is basically about systematic experimental and objective fact.

spacetacular:


Good to know! Stay true to your goal and the rewards are limitless. Strive to start your own practice no matter how small and be a people person. Most of all, keep the faith and continue to earnestly contend for it. God bless you

Amen! And thank you very much!

CatfishBilly:

I genuinely did that. I prayed, searched for him, asked him to reveal himself, then, I did an analysis of everything I prayed for and how many of them that were answered. It wasn't better than coincidence, then I started searching, then I came across the experiment which ticked all the boxes in the scientific method and I was sold.

The method you proposed for checking the efficacy of prayers will render it subjective/anecdotal, don't you think so?

BTW, you don't accept that religion helps with depression?

Does this mean you aren't seeking right now?
The bolded gives an impression you were looking for a scientific answer?

CatfishBilly:

I genuinely did that. I prayed, searched for him, asked him to reveal himself, then, I did an analysis of everything I prayed for and how many of them that were answered. It wasn't better than coincidence, then I started searching, then I came across the experiment which ticked all the boxes in the scientific method and I was sold.

The method you proposed for checking the efficacy of prayers will render it subjective/anecdotal, don't you think so?

BTW, you don't accept that religion helps with depression?

Yeah, prayer is an entirely personal and subjective experience.


And no, I don't think religion helps with depression, but there are many layers to this.

spacetacular:


Young but already well established in God. Very encouraging! I also gather you are a medical student?

yes I am.

spacetacular:


You are an old horse

Here i am still testing out my wings.

lol

Test them out well ma'am. There are fiery acid spitters here, but I can already see you've got them handled already.


Lol. I'm not so old, here or for real, people thought I was an old man when I first came on. I'm in my twenties.

sonofluc1fer:


Been here since 2006.

well done.

CatfishBilly:


Come on, now.
You're a medical student. You know how invaluable clinical studies are in trying to determine the effectiveness of a line of therapy.
Double blind placebo controlled group trials are the best there is.
You can't just wave it off like that, you can as well wave off every single evidence based medicine plan you plan on using for your patients.

When a double blind study proved that religion was very helpful in dealing with depression, it was accepted by christians. But when it failed with prayers, it is now "We cannot completely apply limited human investigations to determine the out working of God's power."?

Besides, the prayers were proper prayers done in a church and the Bible described prayers as goal oriented, it never said anything about it being subjective.

So, in your opinion, what's the best way to measure the efficacy of prayers?

accepted by Christians doesn't mean accepted by me.

The best way to test the efficacy of prayer is to pray yourself. Pray to the God you may have doubts about. Be open to the fact that you don't know everything, make room in your heart and don't assume you know all the answers. Pray to God to reveal himself and his truth to you, seek genuinely with a pure heart.

My answer is based on the assumption that you're a seeker at heart, and not a raver.

spacetacular:


Hello son of the morning star.

and I've actually been here since 2012 in a different moniker.

sonofluc1fer:

How are you doing? You sound pissed.

spacetacular:
@ joshthefirst looking at your ID I can see you have been here since 2014 and I am just fresh on the scene but I think you need to be wise. Questions are thrown at you from a position already occupied by the one asking the question.

In the midst of the question he is also making known what he thinks about the answer you would give even before you have had the chance to give it.

You are being goaded!

When anyone asks a question you have the right to also ask WHY such questions are being asked so he or she can back them up with explanations (arguments). Do not just respond when atheists ask questions. They already have an end in mind and just want to use you to prove they were right all along.

I understand. I always try to take advantage of threads like this to make put forward a point or two too, and if they deteriorate as in the case I'll show below, I let the conversation tether to a halt.

JackBizzle:
Communication is a science. You can't claim that spiritual is different from science then now link them together as spiritual communication.

what are you saying? Communication is exchanging information. I'm not trying to link anything together, you are. Communing with God is exchanging information and presence with God, a spiritual entity. Science deals with what we can handle.

JackBizzle:
There is no evidence for a God. No matter how much faith you have, you will never see physical evidence for God.

There you are going around with your dogmatic idi.ocy.
Let me show you: There is evidence of God. No matter how idi.otic you prove to be, you will never successfully deceive yourself completely into ignoring God's existence.

You've ended our conversation.