in this world it is not the religious that are marginalised, but the non-religious.

Maybe once upon a time... But times are changing very rapidly... As predicted... ;)

Very rapidly indeed, Jeffrey.

in this world it is not the religious that are marginalised, but the non-religious.

Maybe once upon a time... But times are changing very rapidly... As predicted... ;)

Sadly the recent wars, terrorist attacks and rise of fundamentalism of both Islam and Christianity tell a different story. :(

---

Account frozen...

Care to explain you point? Were you claiming we are on drugs?

I quoted the Bible: Gen 6:1-4

I am saying that it is quite likely that whomever wrote that was on drugs. Psychotropic Substances have long been a part of religious experience. It does seem a more likely explanation than that someone actually saw this.

Mystique, are you claiming that everyone that has had a religious vision was under the influence of drugs at the time? Be careful about this. I am a HUGE proponent of the power of science and reason to explain nearly everything, and I don't even claim this. Religion is one area beyond the ability of science to explain. In some religions, 'psychotropic substances' are seen as a facilitator between the participant in the religious ritual and the Higher Power. In other religions, the use of such substances for ANY reason is forbidden, yet they still have visions and messages from the Higher Power. Please do not set yourself up as a Judge by saying that all recipients of such Visions and Messages are on drugs, or are mentally ill, or anything else that would dismiss or marginalize them. Thank you.

Mr MajorKong. I hope you are not speaking from your moderator position..because I am not sure I can change what I think even if you should so command it.

Of course I am not speaking as a moderator in that instance.

As far as I am concerned Religion is easily explained within the realms of science. Visions can be triggered off in many ways..drugs, migraines, starvation, lack of sleep, mental illness, lack of sensory stimulation..even certain sound frequencies have been shown to effect the human brain.

Of course visions, hearing voices, and the like can be caused by things on this list you made here (emphasis mine). However, part of the foundations of Science is that there are many things which we do not yet know. If there weren't, why pursue Science? At the same time, I submit to you that there are things that we do not yet know that we can never know with any Scientific certainty. Matters of Faith are among these, for they are not and can never be subject to Scientific inquiry.

Of course I hope you accept that not everyone believes that there is a higher power to commune with in the first place...

Of course I accept that. But by the same token, I hope that you accept that there are people that DO believe that there IS a higher power to commune with. And, to them, their beliefs are just as valid as yours are to you.

and in this world it is not the religious that are marginalised, but the non-religious.

Oh good one... Try telling that to, for instance, some of the religious in the People's Republic of China. Or, as another example, Christians in the USA who are being restricted (some might say unconstitutionally) from free exercise of their beliefs. It is a Fundamental Human Right to be able to believe whatever one wishes on the subject of the Eternal Verities, even to the point of not believing in any at all. I am not commanding anything. I am just asking you, as one rational human being to another, to not dismiss out of hand the beliefs of others just because they do not agree with yours. Thank you, and be well.

What is death? What does it mean?

Death though I suspect that is not what you meant (couldn’t resist a little jab)

As disappointing as the last episode of the Sopranos was, its take on death is right on target. Everything just stops. End of the line. (and a whole bunch of other tired clichés)

A better question would be: why do people have such a difficult time accepting this?

You can no more prove this than I can prove there is something after death.

True enough. There is only one way to know for certain...though I doubt that any of us is in a hurry to put it to the test ;)

I guess we believe whatever gives us comfort.

Leveling the Praying Field

---

me@rescam.org

And oh LOOK....Right at the tip of the thumb of Michigan...that's the county I live in...and just LOOK at the religious population percentage....sheesh.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Religion is one area beyond the ability of science to explain.

That is simply untrue. Religion is contained within our minds and is a product of the laws of physics. Although there may be some disagreement, depending on what sort of explanation you are looking for, there's no reason to suggest that anything is beyond the ability of the scientific method to explain.

Now, whether others will accept it, well, that's another story.

Please do not set yourself up as a Judge by saying that all recipients of such Visions and Messages are on drugs, or are mentally ill, or anything else that would dismiss or marginalize them.

They do that all by themselves, most specifically, they use faith, which is usually reason enough to dismiss or marginalize anyone for anything. Why? Because "faith" allows one to believe anything at all. So when faith is the sole basis for an idea, that idea ceases to have any worth, because there is no standard for comparing it to other ideas. It's like having an argument over whether the Dragon in my Garage is better than the Dragon in your Garage.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Religion is contained within our minds and is a product of the laws of physics.

Let me know when you find the soul... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Let me know when you find the soul... ;)

I'm not looking.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'm not looking.

That my friend, is exactly why, religion is one area beyond the ability of science to explain. ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I'm not looking.

That my friend, is exactly why, religion is one area beyond the ability of science to explain. ;)

Of course, like usual, that's an empty non-sequitur.

That I'm not looking for some idea that you hold dear has no bearing because my personal efforts have no relationship to the viability of the scientific method.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Religion is contained within our minds and is a product of the laws of physics.

Let me know when you find the soul... ;)

Found it!

---

Account frozen...

Of course, like usual, that's an empty non-sequitur.

Quite contrary, my point was:

The religious know that the soul exists and that it can not be found with science...

The nonreligious are not looking for the soul, and even if they were, they would never find it with science...

Which is why, religion is one area beyond the ability of science to explain... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Here you go Great Moments in Science

---

Once more I have to advocate for FAITH

There is a lot of unusual stuff happening which is only explainable by faith but not really by science.

- Explain why people suddenly get healthy again or heal faster after someone laid hands on them and/or prayed for them (which happened to some people I know, their treating M.D.'s couldn't explain why their healing was that fast).

- Explain how it can happen, that during a discussion about faith a person normally struggling to understand and speak the language of the other ones suddenly begins to speak this language fluently as long (and only as long) as this discussion is going on.

- Explain how it can happen that people can walk bare-feet through fire and ember without getting harmed just because they believe to not get harmed.

Otherwise, scientific theories are treated like a source of faith as long as they aren't proved 100%, and there IS a kind of inquisition going on in science. Scientists whose theories differ from the accepted ones can lose their reputation, even their career, even though their theory is proved true later (see the arguments about 10 or 11 dimensions which eventually ended up in the "M-theory" after the scientists involved gave up their ignorance).

Even the research all of us are participating in by crunching here is based on the faith in the possibility to find radio signals from some extra-terrestrial intelligence by listening into space with this huge radio telescope in Arecibo. As long as there is no proved signal we still trust that there must be a sign, we believe that it is possible. That's nothing but faith.

Faith is not only religious. To have faith means to believe, and to trust. You, R/B, might believe in pure science and in neo-liberalism, I believe in other subjects.

The problem is: as long as we aren't able to prove theories by ourselves, we must either believe other ones who teach us their theory as the only truth - or doubt everything.

---

Account frozen...

Of course, like usual, that's an empty non-sequitur.

Quite contrary, my point was:

Ah, then maybe you should have made that explicit?

The religious know that the soul exists and that it can not be found with science...

What they "know" does not mean anything other than that they have faith it exists. Kinda like some people have faith in El Crystalo Skullso, or ZPE, Dennis Lee, and HHO, or MEG, or any of the rest of it. It's just their belief, it's just what they "know."

The nonreligious are not looking for the soul, and even if they were, they would never find it with science...

Why, because you said so?

Which is why, religion is one area beyond the ability of science to explain... ;)

Ummmm, all you did was reiterate what you said earlier, using more words. It remains a non-sequitur.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Once more I have to advocate for FAITH

There is a lot of unusual stuff happening which is only explainable by faith but not really by science.
- Explain why people suddenly get healthy again or heal faster after someone laid hands on them and/or prayed for them (which happened to some people I know, their treating M.D.'s couldn't explain why their healing was that fast).

People's bodies heal all the time for any number of reasons. Whether someone prayed or laid hands or not. They even get better from Ebola. You need to present an argument for causation here, not that you believe that faith did it.

- Explain how it can happen, that during a discussion about faith a person normally struggling to understand and speak the language of the other ones suddenly begins to speak this language fluently as long (and only as long) as this discussion is going on.

I'm just going to leave this one alone. Talk about a quagmire...if you believe this, more power to you. Oh, and here: Qeresddfnm! Stuemely squidlerous publeling rt mcclerny z fidneys slunt.

- Explain how it can happen that people can walk bare-feet through fire and ember without getting harmed just because they believe to not get harmed.

Because they are covered with ash and ash is a poor conductor of heat. Because it's a poor conductor of heat, and because they move quickly and steadily, there is little time for them to get badly burned. Show me those same people walking across a slab of red hot metal for the same distance and the same pace, and you might have something there. Hey, we could go to Moore's home town of Flint and fire up one of those steel mills--get a nice hot slab going. Get them to walk across that and you'll have convinced me.

Otherwise, scientific theories are treated like a source of faith as long as they aren't proved 100%, and there IS a kind of inquisition going on in science.

Scientific theories aren't "faith" almost by their very definition because as the state of knowledge moves along, the facts get better and more accurate, erroneous points are discarded, and knowledge improves. Those that are stupid enough to have "faith" in their particular choices eventually fall by the wayside. By way of comparison those that have faith as we are discussing already know all the answers: "Jeebus did it." Guess what, that will ALWAYS be what they believe.

Scientists whose theories differ from the accepted ones can lose their reputation, even their career, even though their theory is proved true later (see the arguments about 10 or 11 dimensions which eventually ended up in the "M-theory" after the scientists involved gave up their ignorance).

People are people. They aren't all going to accept everything at the same time.

Even the research all of us are participating in by crunching here is based on the faith in the possibility to find radio signals from some extra-terrestrial intelligence by listening into space with this huge radio telescope in Arecibo. As long as there is no proved signal we still trust that there must be a sign, we believe that it is possible. That's nothing but faith.

I don't have any faith whatsoever. There is no faith in my crunching. I don't trust that there must be a sign. I do it because there is nothing that precludes there being a signal from another world. This is true because we emit signals and if we can do it, so could something else. There's no faith involved.

Faith is not only religious. To have faith means to believe, and to trust. You, R/B, might believe in pure science and in neo-liberalism, I believe in other subjects.

You're doing as you often do, blowing up ideas and definitions into such overlarge generalizations that they cease to have any real meanings. Faith is, by it's very definition, a belief that is not based on proof or material evidence.

I don't have "faith" that the floor remains solid every morning when I put my feet on it. I don't "believe" that the light will go on when I flip the switch. These are part of epistemology, they are part of the principles that humans incorporate into their world views.

The problem is: as long as we aren't able to prove theories by ourselves, we must either believe other ones who teach us their theory as the only truth - or doubt everything.

Except that we can prove our ideas by ourselves: it's called philosophy.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

A number of studies have suggested that patients who are being prayed for recover more quickly or more frequently. One such study, with a double-blind design and about 500 subjects per group, suggested that intercessory prayer by born again Christians had a statistically significant positive effect on a coronary care unit population.[link] Sicher et al suggested statistically significant benefits to a group being prayed for ten years later.[link] Another such study was reported by Harris et al.[link] Critics claim Byrd's 1988 study was not fully double-blinded, and that in the Harris study, patients actually had a longer hospital stay in the prayer group, if one discounts the patients in both groups who left before prayers began.[Tessman I and Tessman J "Efficacy of Prayer: A Critical Examination of Claims," Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2000.] One of the largest randomized, blind clinical trials was a remote retroactive intercessory prayer study conducted in Israel by Leibovici. This study used 3393 patient records from 1990-96, and blindly assigned some of these to an intercessory prayer group. The prayer group had shorter hospital stays and duration of fever.[link]

See also Spontaneous remission

---

Account frozen...

A number of studies have suggested that patients who are being prayed for recover more quickly or more frequently. One such study, with a double-blind design and about 500 subjects per group, suggested that intercessory prayer by born again Christians had a statistically significant positive effect on a coronary care unit population.
>snip the rest<

Really? How would you know who the Christians prayed for? How long, or how often? Wouldn't it seem likely that as Christians they were likely to pray for all of the sick people, and how would you know? Furthermore, how would you control for all of the people who weren't part of the experiment in churches all around the world praying for all those sickies? All the Catholics firing off their prayers of the sick? Who were they praying for and how would you know?

The answer? You can't control for any of these things because they aren't objective standards for a study. By extension it doesn't matter that the study was "double blind" because keeping those that calculate the numbers doesn't insulate the studies from the glaring flaws noted above.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...