Eh, nothing against you in particular, but you know how threads that touch on religion get.

4/23/2010 11:30:03 PM

Quote :

"[citation needed]"

why? its a waste of time really, there are studies both ways. my point was that its disingenuous to use one study as some kind of proof while ignoring others.

double blind study showing positive effects
http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Abstract/1988/0700/Positive_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Intercessory.5.aspx
another:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/19/2273

if you are a student here is something to read (cost money otherwise)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-465D5BB-KD&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1994&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b734d8d86afdd14fac1a2bf65ecb6f33

i was honestly surprised to find those double blind IP studies, but in the same search you can find studies contradicting these results. but none of this matters for my point, my point is that people who want to pray get something out of it and this hope is only a good result. this shouldn't be a stretch for anyone who has taken any 100 level psych class.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50874

Quote :

"Wired for Spirituality? For the past 30 years, Harvard scientist Herbert Benson, MD, has conducted his own studies on prayer. He focuses specifically on meditation, the Buddhist form of prayer, to understand how mind affects body. All forms of prayer, he says, evoke a relaxation response that quells stress, quiets the body, and promotes healing. Prayer involves repetition -- of sounds, words -- and therein lies its healing effects, says Benson. "For Buddhists, prayer is meditation. For Catholics, it's the rosary. For Jews, it's called dovening. For Protestants, it's centering prayer. Every single religion has its own way of doing it." Benson has documented on MRI brain scans the physical changes that take place in the body when someone meditates. When combined with recent research from the University of Pennsylvania, what emerges is a picture of complex brain activity: As an individual goes deeper and deeper into concentration, intense activity begins taking place in the brain's parietal lobe circuits -- those that control a person's orientation in space and establish distinctions between self and the world. Benson has documented a "quietude" that then envelops the entire brain. At the same time, frontal and temporal lobe circuits -- which track time and create self-awareness -- become disengaged. The mind-body connection dissolves, Benson says. And the limbic system, which is responsible for putting "emotional tags" on that which we consider special, also becomes activated. The limbic system also regulates relaxation, ultimately controlling the autonomic nervous system, heart rate, blood pressure, metabolism, etc., says Benson. The result: Everything registers as emotionally significant, perhaps responsible for the sense of awe and quiet that many feel. The body becomes more relaxed and physiological activity becomes more evenly regulated. Does all this mean that we are communicating with a higher being -- that we are, in fact, "hard-wired" at the factory to do just that? That interpretation is purely subjective, Benson tells WebMD. "If you're religious, this is God-given. If you're not religious, then it comes from the brain." "

even if there is no god these are measurable good things. one of the statistics they quote is that people who are not religious are 14 times more likely to die following surgery. i am hardly holding this as some evidence of god, but there is evidence that at the least you can't ignore, that says that prayer creates some kind of physiological response that is beneficial.

of all of the nuances and contradictions in religion, of all of the problems and hypocrites, prayer is really the one thing that really stands above criticism. there is no catch when it comes to prayer. its effective or its not, but its never harmful.

4/24/2010 12:51:43 AM

1)As stated previously, meditation does not equal prayer. It is disingenuous to associate the two.
2)I'm enjoying you retorting to a Harvard medical study with the largest sample size ever from 2006 with bullshit from 1994 and 1999. It really bolsters the argument. Apparently if there ever was a study on a something, even if more recent, larger studies disprove it, it must be true.

Did you know that they did studies on ESP? Surely it must exist.

[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 7:40 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2010 7:19:37 AM

^ your study was about something i am not talking about
see:

Quote :

"i was honestly surprised to find those double blind IP studies, but in the same search you can find studies contradicting these results. but none of this matters for my point, my point is that people who want to pray get something out of it and this hope is only a good result. this shouldn't be a stretch for anyone who has taken any 100 level psych class."

i then posted an article that describes this physiological response in terms even you should be able to understand.
you haven't posted anything that contradicts the study that people who pray tend to recover better.

[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 8:10 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2010 8:08:28 AM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that motherly kisses have healing properties? Or that the act of a kiss somehow alters the healing process?"

Quote :

"Kissing boo-boos is something that has zero positive effect, and is done simply to provide empty comfort."

Kissing boo-boos could have a placebo effect, which I don't deny is also possible with prayer. But yes, it would be false consolation, for the same reasons I've stated above. The difference is that it is a white lie told to children, with the full expectation that the child will one day grow out of this belief. The same can obviously not be said about religion and prayer.

[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ]

4/24/2010 10:35:57 AM

just popped in to see what was going on in this thread. slowly backing out now...

4/24/2010 11:05:19 AM

Quote :

""I think our definitions of prayer are not aligning. My working definition of prayer is a petition to God to provide some service. Then when you claim prayer works, you are effectively stating that you petitioned god and it responded in some measurable way. If this is true, prayer must affect change more often than non-prayer affects change. Are you working with some other definition of prayer?"

Most Christian groups believe that prayer is more of a means to strengthen their personal relationship with God. Do I believe in this?....? I don't know. I am very agnostic about religion, or anything for that matter. The intellectual side of me finds it very hard to believe that there is some omnipotent presence that decides the fate of all 4+ billion people in the world. The other side of me tells me that it is very arrogant to think that the world as I know it was created by sheer chance and I (my species) am the most intelligent being to exist, and that millions upon millions of people, some highly educated, who DO believe in a higher power are just 100% wrong.

Getting back to the definition of prayer though, when I was in church, we were taught that prayer was a way to communicate with God. We were taught that we could pray for soemthing we wanted (for example, a relationship to work out, someone to get better, a physical item, more money) but that didn't mean we were going to get it. It just meant that we were talking to God and strengthening our relationship. Through this strengthening of our relationship it would ultimately lead to understanding, if not acceptance of what actually did happen. So even though my grandfather may not have recovered from terminal cancer like I prayed for, ideally if I spoke with God enough I would accept his passing and understand the possible positive implications of it.

So honestly, you can throw as many examples of parents neglecting their kids because they thought prayer would save them as you want, because those are not examples of what most people consider prayer. Most people who don't finish college will not become multi-billionaires like Bill Gates. Most Muslims are not suicide bombers. Most people from West Virginia do not sleep with their siblings. Most priests do not molest their altar boys. Yet many times, when people start arguing about a subject, they bring up the "outliers" in a group to try and strengthen their point, when in reality they are doing nothing but grasping for straws. I imagine I can find an outlier to just about any group who would make that group look bad, but what does that prove.... that a normal distribution curve holds true in society also?

And lastly, as to the Harvard study. That's about the most ridiculous study ever. I am not even going to get into how inaccurate it is.... It's laughable. Once again though, prayer is simply a communication line between yourself and God. It doesn't mean you will get what you want. It's not like you can prove or disprove it either, especially like Harvard attempted to. It's like saying..... "Well, 1,000 people bought lottery tickets, and 500 prayed to God prior to selecting the numbers but 500 didn't, and nobody won the lottery, so.... God doesn't exist!!" Seriously, is that your argument? Like I said, I don't know if I believe in God or prayer, etc, but if I was going to try and disprove it I would be ashamed to go about it like Harvard did.

4/24/2010 11:34:36 AM

None of my criticisms of prayer can be said to only be true about the "outliers".

And it's pretty clear that you don't understand what the Harvard study was about, don't understand what a double-blind study is, or both.

[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2010 12:19:02 PM

no, the problem is that you can't see that you are talking about something different than me and can't tell the difference between your opinion and the experience of others

4/24/2010 12:33:55 PM

So enlighten us. Tell us about the form of prayer that doesn't lend itself to the criticism I've offered.



[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2010 12:47:04 PM

Your "criticisms" are merely your personal opinions.

And disco_stu, there's nothing disingenuous about associating prayer with meditation. Most of the time, they are one in the same.

4/24/2010 2:26:25 PM

I don't think so. I don't know the thoughts and prayers of everyone on earth, but I suspect that a majority of prayers, at least in the Christian religion, are not "meditation," they're requests, i.e. "dear god, if you just let me pass this test, I'll never come to another test unprepared again." A pastor would probably say that's not how you're supposed to pray. You're supposed to be praising God and shit, but I can't think of anything more useless than praising a sadistic God that probably doesn't exist anyway. Plus, it'd just be a huge waste of time if you're not benefiting from it in some way. God shouldn't need your praise.

I've heard countless stories in church, or from Christians, and they're all about the same. "Bobby had cancer. It was a massive malignant tumor in his brain. The doctor said he had around a week to live. Everyone prayed really hard and trusted in God, and then when we went back for a second round of scans, the cancer was completely gone! The doctors didn't have an explanation, but we know it was the Lord!" I mean, what a load of bullshit. You know you're missing the real story, if not being straight up lied to, and it's very insulting.

What it comes down to is that humans are often unable to deal with the harsh circumstances they find themselves in. No one likes the idea of a universe that doesn't have them alive and conscious in it. No one likes the idea that you will just die, or get some terrible illness that will cause you to die. If someone tells you, "I know the magic words to say, and it'll fix your problems," it's very tempting. That's why religion, for the most part, is one big con. It plays on people's fears and emotions, but on a massive scale.

Quote :

"And oh, d5str0y3r -- if you are capable of respecting people that you sincerely believe are party to one of the most destructive forces in the world, then there's something wrong with you."

I don't think they know or believe that they're party to one of the most destructive forces in the world. They've just had the wool pulled over their eyes. I'm sure that everyone here, even the religious ones, have had doubts, whether they've voiced those doubts out loud or not. I think everyone has asked the question, "is this thing I'm claiming to believe in fake?" It's not hard to override reason and "just believe," though.

[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2010 3:59:38 PM

i like how you firstly throw out about 66% of religious people with your "only christianity" then make your conclusions on what you "suspect"

nice

4/24/2010 4:07:38 PM

I like how you read about one line of my post. I know it probably makes you cringe to see your belief system challenged in writing, but maybe you should read the whole thing 3 or 4 times and let it sink in.

I don't know enough about other religions to know what those religions say is possible through prayer, so I'm not going to guess. I know what many versions of Christianity say, and I know from my experiences when people pray, how they pray, and what they pray for. There's no way to know what actually goes on inside of every person's head, but a lot of people pray in times of desperation. I don't make any conclusions based on that suspicion, it's just an observation.

4/24/2010 4:33:44 PM

my belief system? well now you are just being a little too presumptuous.

if someone does something that gives them comfort and doesn't hurt anything whats the problem with that? who cares if they are praying to a magical character that doesn't exist, what does it matter? it gives them comfort and doesnt hurt anyone.

4/24/2010 4:55:07 PM

^^You sound like an atheist whose experience with Christianity is limited to the evangelism channel and movies.

4/24/2010 6:17:32 PM

Quote :

"Your "criticisms" are merely your personal opinions."

That's typically what a criticism is. But criticisms, or opinions, can be right or wrong. I am clearly asserting that I am right - that my opinion is correct. Pointing out that my criticism is an opinion doesn't even begin address whether I'm right or not. It's just a cop out.

Also, my criticisms don't only address the types of prayer d357r0y3r is talking about. I am talking about all prayer, including the "casual conversation with God" type of prayer.

Quote :

"You sound like an atheist whose experience with Christianity is limited to the evangelism channel and movies."

Why can't you guys just take on the arguments as they're presented instead of falling back on your presumptions about people's character or upbringing?

[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 6:48 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2010 6:43:48 PM

Quote :

"Replace liberals with conservatives, see: abortion, environmental standards, healthcare"

I am conservative in terms of the fact that I don't like to have a government that controls every god damned aspect of my life, that doesn't mean I align with everything a hardcore religious republican would want to have occur.

I think the words conservative and liberal are very poorly understood in this country.

I am an agnostic atheist (A STRONG 6 on the Dawkins Scale, "De-facto Atheist") and a straight up anti-theist. I am not a big supporter of the death penalty. It's not because I don't think people should be killed for certain actions, but I simply can't ever quite get to the point where I can say I'm ok with the the government being allowed to kill its own citizens. I think abortion absolutely MUST be allowed, so I'm certainly not aligned with the republican party's stance there.

Honestly, I find that the Republican party is not particularly conservative when it comes to a lot of things (Many of which are related to their alignments with those who hold christian beliefs, mind you). Having the government prevent you from having an abortion or force prayer to occur in schools is not conservative in terms of the government's involvement in our lives IMO.

Quote :

"Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems."

I agree with this and I just don't find that some of the things pushed by the republican party align with that idea. We all know that "traditional American values" are hardly christian in nature (At least those of us who actually read about history rather than take some god lover's word for it). It is odd to me that the same page that quotes this then goes on to say that, on the subject of abortion, "conservatives believe human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. Nobody has the right to murder a human being."

I completely fail to see how that aligns with their definition of conservative. This is what christians believe, not someone who simply wants a conservative government. This is advocating LESS personal responsibility, MORE government involvement and is the exact opposite of empowering the individual, lol. People in this country get their shit all mixed up IMO. Conservative /= republican or religious.

4/24/2010 7:29:26 PM

Quote :

"That's typically what a criticism is. But criticisms, or opinions, can be right or wrong. I am clearly asserting that I am right - that my opinion is correct. Pointing out that my criticism is an opinion doesn't even begin address whether I'm right or not. It's just a cop out."

You asked someone to address them, but you didn't provide any support for your beliefs. Thus, they are addressed simply by saying "I disagree". Your opinions are not self-evident truths.

Quote :

"Why can't you guys just take on the arguments as they're presented instead of falling back on your presumptions about people's character or upbringing?"

I could say the same to you.

This has all been done before, with the same players. Disco_Stu cites the crazy fringe members of Christianity as examples of the whole of religion. Then I question his sampling methods. He responds by redefining the scope of "Religious people" to suit his argument (e.g. those who don't follow the Bible exactly as its written are not true Christians).

4/24/2010 11:33:35 PM

Well, they aren't!

ITT, Evangelism is "fringe Christianity".

I know you're all modern hip Christians that have personal relationships with God. I was wrong, you're all cool and when you pray you enter deep meditative states. You're not asking for him to protect you, or bless your food, or to heal someone who is sick, or thanking him for the blessings he gives you. Real Christians never do that.

4/25/2010 8:35:29 AM

But let's get back on topic shall we?

Is a National Day of Prayer constitutional?

4/25/2010 10:14:09 AM

I'm not a christian - don't lump me in with those crazies!

4/25/2010 10:54:22 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test

Quote :

"The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;"

i don't think it meets that requirement

4/25/2010 12:33:10 PM

That's also why this case is important. In order for the Court to find NDP to be constitutional, they'll have to determine that it doesn't violate the Lemon and endorsement tests, that the Lemon and endorsement tests aren't applicable to this case, or that the Lemon and endorsement tests are no longer legitimate Supreme Court precedent.

I think the Court is unlikely to make the first two determinations. What scares is that they might decide to do away with the Lemon and endorsement tests altogether, which would have all sorts of ramifications. Public funding for religious schools, intelligent design in the classroom - all of these would have to be reconsidered if those tests were abolished.

[Edited on April 25, 2010 at 1:52 PM. Reason : rarefactions?]

4/25/2010 1:51:13 PM

Is disco_stu still trolling ITT and doing a poor job of it?

4/25/2010 3:31:58 PM

disco_stu references studies that disprove older flawed studies. He must be trolling.
disco_stu demands evidence for made up shit that can't be observed. He must be trolling.
disco_stu respects the establishment clause. He must be trolling.

4/25/2010 6:39:31 PM

Yup, he is. That answered my question, thanks.

4/25/2010 8:18:16 PM

ITT Golovko being as much of an idiot as he is in Tech Talk.

4/25/2010 10:32:53 PM

U MAD?

4/25/2010 11:38:16 PM

how does a "national prayer day" endorse a particular religion?

just askin'

4/26/2010 2:02:33 AM

It endorses religion over non-religion. It endorses religions that pray over religions that do not believe in prayer...

4/26/2010 3:00:36 AM

not having it endorses atheists and agnostics which are the ones bitching up a storm. Can't please everyone all the time and since Atheists/Agnostics are not the majority they can deal with it since 1 Prayer Day does not affect them in any way, shape, or form.

4/26/2010 3:13:03 AM

Quote :

"not having it endorses atheists and agnostics which are the ones bitching up a storm."

no it doesn't. that's retarded.

so does the fact that we don't celebrate christmas endorse athiests as well? do we have to endorse every religion so as to not endorse athiesm.

worst. rebuttal. ever.

4/26/2010 3:20:14 AM

Quote :

"how does a "national prayer day" endorse a particular religion? just askin'"

Show me where the word particular is in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

4/26/2010 9:16:24 AM

it doesn't endorse a religion, its unconstitutional because there is no secular purpose for it

4/26/2010 9:22:00 AM

Christmas is a federal holiday.

The phrase "an establishment of religion" implies a distinct religion or institution, and the clause itself was a response to England's establishment of a state church. However, it's still vague enough to be open to interpretation, and times have changed such that religion plays a lesser role in society.

There are two common (in law) interpretations: "Total separation" vs "Non-preferential". Both are reasonable and justified, and both are in use today. It just depends on the judge.

4/26/2010 9:49:21 AM

Hey, just because Christmas is a federal holiday doesn't mean I think it should be. It's as silly as National Prayer Day.

When I was working for the state, I made the suggestion that they simply pool all Holidays as floating holidays so people of other faiths could take their week off when they felt like it. Of course, this is impractical since the entire fucking country shuts down on Christmas week anyway.

Thanks Ulysses S. Grant!

4/26/2010 10:04:09 AM

Quote :

"my logic? My logic is that it respects the establishment of religion, which is directly prohibited by the 1st line in the Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with alienating anyone. Jesus, you're obtuse. "

Quote :

"Show me where the word particular is in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". "

the establishment of religion
an establishment of religion

if it was decided to use "an" instead of "the" then "particular" is pretty much implied.
you have just assumed the phrase to mean "the" which is evident in your other post before you used the direct quote

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM. Reason : i]

4/26/2010 12:04:13 PM

Well shit, my use of an article has totally undermined my argument. You're right. National Prayer day is totally constitutional, non-discriminatory, and should be sanctioned and paid for with my tax money.

It's still an establishment of religions that pray over religions that do not.


[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2010 12:24:01 PM

I've kind of been wanting to point out the fact that "prayer" is not necessarily exclusive to religion, but thats a whole can of worms I don't want to get into here.

I'll grant the day is unconstitutional because it doesn't pass the "excessive entanglement" test put forth 40 years ago and ignored countless times in other, less known situations.

4/26/2010 1:41:08 PM

Quote :

"Well shit, my use of an article has totally undermined my argument. You're right. National Prayer day is totally constitutional, non-discriminatory, and should be sanctioned and paid for with my tax money. It's still an establishment of religions that pray over religions that do not. "

so you are changing your arguement now? you now believe the constitution to mean one religion over another instead of religion in general?

I guess I'll switch arguements as well (though in the course of typing this it looks like someone has already brought it up ^)

you are assuming that your definetion of prayer is limited only to religion. i don't know if your google is broken, but mine seems to be able to pull up definetions for prayer that are not tied to religion. Where does that leave us now? We still playing the "intellectually opposed" card from the first page? or only when it goes in your favor?

4/26/2010 1:51:53 PM

Read the fucking law:

Quote :

"The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals."

And take your semantics bullshit elsewhere.

4/26/2010 2:00:50 PM

^^see my earlier post.

Quote :

"Is disco_stu still trolling ITT and doing a poor job of it?"

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ^]

4/26/2010 2:00:58 PM

eat a bowl of dicks. there, that's trolling.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM. Reason : and it felt good too]

V
Naw, just annoyed that you buried my response to Norrin Radd.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM. Reason : V]

4/26/2010 2:01:43 PM

U MAD?

4/26/2010 2:02:04 PM

disco_stu FTW in this thread

4/26/2010 2:07:53 PM

disco_stu brings nothing new to this thread nor anything worth reading. #trollfail

4/26/2010 2:12:07 PM

Quit talking about me like I'm not here!

I thought my posting of the actual unconstitutional law was something new: to illustrate that it's not ambiguous about what type of "prayer" the National Day of Prayer is referring to.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM. Reason : holy run on sentence batman]

4/26/2010 2:19:13 PM

Quote :

"The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals"

Did you read the law?
Which part is unconstitutional?

I don't see any part where it is mandated that you pray to a god or anything at all? I don't even see a request to do that. It just says you can if you want to. It's really a "nothing" statement.

If anything he is giving us permission to pray. In which case every other day of the year we are by default being denied permission to pray. Maybe that is what is unconstitutional?

It looks like you are saying that the law reads that each year the president shall issue a proclamation. Is it unconstitutional to issue proclamations?

4/26/2010 3:16:39 PM

The law unambiguously is referring to religious prayer. There, you can let go of your prayer semantics. In fact, it is unambiguously referring to an Abrahamic religious prayer (God).

The law doesn't grant anyone permission to do anything. It is overtly designating a specific day of religious prayer to an Abrahamic God. It is a recognition that prayer to God as a something Americans do on this day, every year. It's disgusting.

4/26/2010 3:32:41 PM