Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If prayers go unanswered....?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 201 (196661)
04-04-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
04-04-2005 10:35 AM


quote:
Thank GOD for giving us the intellect and talents to develop miracle drugs and procedures.
If that's what they said, I wouldn't mind.
But they clearly believe that their prayers have been personally answered and God has miraculously directly intervened in their particular case to save the life of their loved one.
...and oh yeah, the doctors and nurses helped a little bit too.
That's the feeling I get from these people, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
PEOPLE did that work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 04-04-2005 10:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 04-04-2005 12:04 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 103 of 201 (196716)
04-04-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Monk
04-04-2005 12:04 PM


quote:
Did I mention scientists? Are scientists the only bright minds in this or past generations who have made medical or technological contributions ?
No, of course not.
But the science is where all of it starts.
Even if a doctor or an engineer thinks up something innovative, it still is probably based upon past science.
Scientific findings are what doctors and medical technicians and practitioners of all kinds use to develop cures and treatments.
quote:
You narrow the focus of the term ?bright minds? to scientists in order to prove your point without acknowledging that atheist scientists are a minority subset of the broader category of people who are represented by the term ?bright minds?.
I included doctors in my example.
quote:
And while I do agree that the trend over the last century has been an increase in atheism among scientists, it doesn?t change my original observation that the vast majority of bright minds over the centuries have been people of faith.
Mmmmm, I'd really like to see some data to back that up.
What kind of faith did they have, for example? Were they devout, did they attend worship services, did they consider themselves a particular sect or denomination, or did they just believe in some kind of undefined "higher power" a la Percy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 12:04 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 12:56 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 201 (196879)
04-05-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Monk
04-05-2005 12:56 AM


What kind of faith did they have, for example? Were they devout, did they attend worship services, did they consider themselves a particular sect or denomination, or did they just believe in some kind of undefined "higher power" a la Percy?
quote:
Why do you want that information? You don't think the majority of people over the centuries have been people of faith?
I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean by "people of faith", and also what you mean by "bright minds". I have always been talking only about "bright minds" who have been involved in producing medical advances.
For example, your originaly claimed the following WRT the bright minds who have been involed in producing medical advances:
quote:
But what I can say is that over all those generations right up to the present day, the vast majority of those bright minds were believers who not only had a profound respect for God but also for the majesty of His creations.
Now, I have shown that a significant portion of people involved in producing medical advances for the last 100 years or so, the scientists who do the basic research from which our advances originate, have not been believers at all.
For you to claim that the "vast majority" of "bright minds" involved in producing medical advances have always "not only had a profound respect for God but also for the majesty of His creations", I think you need to show that this is actually what the "vast majority" specifically believed.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-05-2005 08:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 12:56 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 9:56 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 201 (196881)
04-05-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
04-04-2005 12:04 PM


quote:
Is there a problem with other peoples personal beliefs where they do not impinge on others? If they believe that GOD helped or even was the primary cause of the result, does it have effect beyond their belief system?
I actually do believe that there is a general social detrimental effect to discounting human achievement and instead giving most of the credit to one's personal deity in cases such as this.
I believe that it fostors the attitude of preferring to "pray to make things better" and "giving it up to god" instead of thinking hard and making every effort to figure out solutions to problems, and taking action.
quote:
Try looking through their eyes and appreciate that you are seeing people that have come through a crisis, are perhaps not at their most rational, and that are speaking purely from emotion.
...and every time I have been in such a situation (and I have been, more than just a few times) I have been so grateful to the doctors and everyone else who's expertise and skill helped my loved one to recover. AND I've been plenty emotional.
And it's not just those people. Inevitably Oprah or some news anchor says "It's a miracle", too.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-05-2005 08:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 04-04-2005 12:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mike the wiz, posted 04-05-2005 9:51 AM nator has replied
 Message 116 by jar, posted 04-05-2005 10:26 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 201 (196893)
04-05-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by mike the wiz
04-05-2005 9:51 AM


quote:
Shraff, where's your evidence to back up your claims?
Uh, I watch the television news occasionally, and I see the people saying "Its a miracle" all the time.
quote:
How do you not know that they did thank the doctors aswell as thanking God?
I'm sure they did. It's not what is reported, however.
quote:
If you say you haven't heard of miracle cases, then how is it you're complaining about them? I guess you HAVE heard of miraculous claims afterall.
Yeah. Every case is a miracle case these days.
How about you reply to my post with the substantive questions you say you would love to answer instead of dicking around?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-05-2005 09:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mike the wiz, posted 04-05-2005 9:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 201 (196895)
04-05-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Monk
04-05-2005 9:56 AM


quote:
I never claimed medical advances exclusively nor did I use the term "always".
I have only ever been talking about medical advances, and since I brought up the issue, I get to define the argument.
Seriously, It is true that most people, including the brightest minds, have been believers in some sort of unseen supernatural power.
quote:
Why does the determination of the type of faith, or worship services, or which sect or denomination these belivers were part of have any impact on whether they were part of a larger group of people who believed in God?
Well, not everyone believes in the same way, do they? You are the one saying that the vast majority have "profound respect" for God, etc. Those are specific claims about the nature of their belief, which I think you should at least try to back up.
If you want to make a very vague claim such as the one I made above, that's different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 9:56 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:20 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 115 of 201 (196902)
04-05-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by mike the wiz
04-05-2005 9:51 AM


quote:
If you say you haven't heard of miracle cases, then how is it you're complaining about them? I guess you HAVE heard of miraculous claims afterall.
I did a search on "miracle" on Yahoo News, and 8,900 hits came back.
They refer to sports team victories, medical and disaster survival stories, tales of items found, descriptions of products and economic conditions, and so on.
What I want to know is why don't the obituaries, sports team losses, failed products, and stories of items never recovered mention that a miracle didn't occur?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mike the wiz, posted 04-05-2005 9:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 117 of 201 (196904)
04-05-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Monk
04-05-2005 10:20 AM


quote:
True, not everyone who believes, believes in the same way, but they still fundamentally believe. Is it not possible to categorize people into one of two categories: those that do and those that do not believe?
Yes, that is certainly possible.
quote:
If it is possible to do so, then I would surmise that those people who do believe have a respect for God. Perhaps not necessarily a "profound" respect but still at its core a respect nonetheless. Would this be a fair statment?
I don't know if that is a fair statement or not.
We are now getting into the nature of individuals' beliefs.
What do you mean by "respect for God"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:20 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:35 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 201 (196907)
04-05-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Monk
04-05-2005 10:35 AM


quote:
By respect, I mean someone who honors God.
Well, what do you mean by "honors God"?
See the difficulty here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:35 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:39 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 201 (196920)
04-05-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by pink sasquatch
04-05-2005 10:39 AM


quote:
My point to this whole line of discussion is that you know that you were rapidly healed as a result of prayer, but we have no way of knowing if that is the truth separate of your own claim, which is likely biased and out of touch with reality (not an insult - this would apply to just about anyone, particularly in an intense moment of physical illness and spiritual pleading).
He had a cold, pink. He had a sore throat that was gone after a night's rest.
If this is what he considers "intense physical illness" then he's a pretty fragile boy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-05-2005 10:39 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by mike the wiz, posted 04-05-2005 11:17 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 125 of 201 (196921)
04-05-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Monk
04-05-2005 10:39 AM


"Respecing" or "honoring" god seems to mean different things to different people, depending upon individual religious notions and the religious tradition in which they were raised.
In order to fit all of the people you want to into the group of "bright minds" who also believe in God, I think you are going to have to leave it that vague.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:39 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 04-05-2005 11:26 AM nator has not replied
 Message 131 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 11:41 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 127 of 201 (196923)
04-05-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Monk
04-05-2005 11:05 AM


Re: God in a bottle
If God lets people die of disease that He would have otherwise saved, simply to avoid the possibility of registering a statistical anomaly in a small clinical trial, then God is not a very nice guy...
quote:
As I stated upthread, if we are only speaking of a statistical anomaly in a small clinical trial, then that is not going to convince any large group of people of the existence of God beyond a resonable doubt based on physical evidence, so it is inconsequential and would not cause God to act in any way other than He already is.
But if "small statistical anomolies" continue to show up in repeated tests, larger, more meaningful tests are generally undertaken to explort the phenomena further.
At any rate, you are kind of avoiding pink's point that God might have to let people die to avoid detection.
So, what if someone did a very large study and we still saw no difference? What would you think of there being no detectable effect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 11:05 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 11:44 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 128 of 201 (196924)
04-05-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by mike the wiz
04-05-2005 11:09 AM


A reply to message #68, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by mike the wiz, posted 04-05-2005 11:09 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by mike the wiz, posted 04-05-2005 11:29 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 139 of 201 (197204)
04-06-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Monk
04-05-2005 11:41 AM


quote:
But any concept can be shown to be vague if it is parsed sufficiently fine. Using that technique, then it would not be possible to draw inferences on anything. Bill Clinton showed how effective this can be when he said, ?It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.?
OK, then, please define what it means for people to "respect God" such that you are reasonably sure that the definition you use applies to the "vast majority" of believers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 11:41 AM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 140 of 201 (197205)
04-06-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Monk
04-05-2005 11:44 AM


Re: God in a bottle
quote:
But that's the point. There have been large intercessory prayer studies that show no appreciable effect.
So, that must mean that it is quite possible that God is letting some people die (or perhaps even causing them to die) just so he can avoid detection.
Your last message referred to statistical anomolies in small studies not making any difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 11:44 AM Monk has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024