Prayer is No Substitute for Actually Doing Shit

"You actually telling me that a work is invalid solely on the basis of an author's political or religious affinity and not the substance of his thesis? So I should also count as rubbish all the articles in the FFT site on the basis of who the author is? "

ur link is insufficient. try mine:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

Lassie, it is common decency to address the subject of the discussion than introduce another to distract the discussion at hand. In the first place, it is the most common strategy of you Free-T's to move from topic to topic when pinned against the banshee! Let's not do that, it's quite disappointing.

ur not just disappointing. ur becoming a laughingstock.

when pushed into a corner, godfrey_buillon accuses other debaters of introducing a new topic in order to arrest the development of an argument.

do us all a favor. quit.

The reason for prayer is rooted in belief and belief is rooted in faith. The article in question addresses neither and as such treats prayer as a superficial nonsense. So in fact it bothers me not that my responses are not taken seriously since the article itself is something that cannot really be taken seriously too! It's main premise that those who pray don't act is itself a bloody farce. Throughout history, people have found solace in belief and prayer. One cannot put in materialistically quantifiable terms the effects of prayer because there are no direct material effects of prayer that are a hundred percent definable. If you don't get this then you never will. G'Day mate.

Don't commit a no true Scotsman fallacy by redefining what a prayer is. A prayer is a prayer by all definitions. There is no such thing as a false prayer and a true prayer in this sense. Acting on it is incidental.

And to say that "the reason for prayer is rooted in belief and belief is rooted in faith" is simply intellectual treason. You're doing it completely backwards. It's like you're saying that faith begets belief, which begets reason, when in fact it should be reason that comes first before belief.

"Throughout history, people have found solace in belief and prayer." Still it doesn't change the fact that it does nothing.

"One cannot put in materialistically quantifiable terms the effects of prayer because there are no direct material effects of prayer that are a hundred percent definable." If so, what significance has prayer for us anyways?

That it does nothing is a matter of your personal opinion. Just ask the billions of believers who have passed this world if it has done something for them and you might end up being embarrassed! I would however be surprised if you would ever get an answer that is empirical. The effects of prayer are in the spiritual and emotional both of which are beyond the reach of non-believers. Which leads me again to the conclusion that this article is written by someone who feels he is entitled to everything he asks for and when he doesn't get it behaves like a brat. The article reeks of a kind of desperate disappointment that begs for his prayer to beanswered. Good thing Christianity believes in intercessory prayer which means that I will be praying for that anguish and denial to somehow be reconciled sometime.

//That it does nothing is a matter of your personal opinion. Just ask the billions of believers who have passed this world if it has done something for them and you might end up being embarrassed!//

Argument from popularity, mate?

//. The effects of prayer are in the spiritual and emotional both of which are beyond the reach of non-believers.//

As I've said, since you're arguing that the effect of prayer can be found in how it affects a person's emotional state, what makes it any different from a medical placebo?

//Good thing Christianity believes in intercessory prayer which means that I will be praying for that anguish and denial to somehow be reconciled sometime. //

There are more important things to be praying over, my friend. Such as asking god to give you a bit more common sense.

Post hoc propter hoc fallacy: X happened after Y, therefore Y caused X.

In your terms, that would be: Change happened after prayer, therefore prayer caused change.

And I am referring to concrete tangible real change, not the change in personality or perspective that you get after you contemplate.

Unless you can rationally explain how prayer is the reason why things happen (say praying for rain causes rain), then my point stands.

Your point, dear sir, of rationalizing the effects of prayer seems to me to be quite irrational. It is much like measuring the effects of saying to someone that you love them. The effects go far beyond what is apparent and tangible. If you can't understand that , if you can't see beyond your nose, then I must leave you to your own vices. Good day.

Enlighten me then, how prayer does change.

Here: http://bit.ly/4nLQ74

That is at least the kind of "change" you can believe in (I could swear this is someone's political slogan).

Now, of course, that in no way proves God exists. But, while prayer isn't a "substitute for doing shit" (says some guy who does "shit" [since he's probably a member of FF] in defense of a pop-culture movement that, pound for pound –accdng. to Godffery [which is, by the way, verifiably true]– doesn't do "shit".), prayer nevertheless makes people more conduced to doing "shit".

Really, I shit you not.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199703/ca…

//Really, I shit you not..//

Actually you are, you just don't realize it.

I did a quick read on the some of the ACTUAL studies cited the blog you posted:

Based on the studies the health benefits are NOT from religiosity itself but the health practices based on their religiosity.
An atheist who doesn't smoke, drink, eats healthy and exercises regularly will receive the exact same benefits.

Enstrom JE Health practices and cancer mortality among active California Mormons. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. , 1989; 81(23): 1807-14.

The mortality pattern of Seventh-Day Adventists (SDAs) in the Netherlands was assessed during a ten-year study period, 1968–1977. Of 522 deceased SDAs the causes of death of 482 could be ascertained. Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMR) for total mortality (SMR = 0,45), cancer (SMR = 0,50) and cardiovascular diseases (SMR = 0,41) as well as for various subgroups differed significantly from the total Dutch population. Mean age at death as well as life-expectation at baptism were significantly higher in SDAs, both in males and females, as compared with Dutch males and females.

A health survey among a sample of the total SDA population and a group of ‘friend’ controls was done in order to try to explain the differences in mortality pattern and life expectancy. It is concluded that evidence was found for the thesis that abstinence from cigarette smoking is the main factor explaining the low mortality from ischaemic heart diseases among SDAs, while presumably an appropriate (prudent) diet confers additional benefit for example on colon cancer mortality.

Berkel, J. & de Waard, F.(1983)

A more detailed abstract on the studies you posted. It's more about lifestyle not religiosity; rather lifestyle based on their religiosity.
Religiously active Mormons in California are a nonsmoking population with unusually low risk for cancer. This finding is based on the results of our 1979 questionnaire survey of life-style and the 8-year (1980-1987) follow-up of mortality among 5,231 Mormon high priests and 4,613 wives 25-99 years of age. Our study, which is the first prospective cohort study of Mormons, shows low standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for this population, relative to those for whites in the general population in the United States, which are defined as 100. The SMRs for males are 47 for all cancers, 52 for cardiovascular diseases, and 47 for all causes; the SMRs for females are 72 for all cancers, 64 for cardiovascular diseases, and 66 for all causes. For middle-aged high priests adhering to three health practices (never smoking cigarettes, engaging in regular physical activity, and getting proper sleep), the SMRs are 34 for all cancers, 14 for cardiovascular diseases, and 22 for all causes. These results have been largely replicated in an active Mormon-like subgroup (white nonsmokers attending church weekly) from a representative sample of residents of Alameda County, CA. Our findings confirm and expand on previous descriptive studies of Mormons and demonstrate how these results can be generalized.
PMID: 2585528 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

I call cherry picking and just being lazy for not bothering to read the entire studies. Miguel you just fell for the one of the many common pitfalls of a common fundamentalist trying a debate on empirical observations.

Basti / Twin,

The observably flawed manner by which Ryan Amparo got to his conclusions was something I thought important to point out.

Needless to say, I was expecting someone to make the kind of response you just did, so I was careful to call it the kind of "change" a naturalist could believe in.

Obviously the health benefits would be based on the religious practice; Obviously, because of how the article frames the discussion in, that's what someone in my place would attempt to show, because obviously we're talking about prayer and "doing shit", and not the broader 'belief' in a deity.

Don't make problems where none exist. What I said was simple enough; praying, while not a substitute for doing shit, conduces people to do more shit. That's it. Which is why you'll find that the people doing the most shit are the people who in fact do pray.

Can it on occasion be harmful? Of course. We can get imaginative and think of a way it could be. But that's more the exception than the rule –like saying exercise can on occasion be harmful.

So your counter quite clearly misses it's mark.

//But that's more the exception than the rule –like saying exercise can on occasion be harmful.//

Perhaps this is just me nitpicking, but as an avid runner and a practitioner of boxing and arnis, I would really like to know why you think comparing exercise with prayer is in any way a good analogy.

Praying doesn't improve my cardio or teach me how to defend myself in a mugging.

My points is that there is a large body of work supporting the benefits of exercise to the human body. Attempts to prove the efficacy of prayers in improving health, on the other hand, are rather shabby.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/…

I also note that all of the sources your article cited are pre-21st century. Can you cite more contemporary sources?

What I was actually comparing wasn't exercise and prayer per se, but the ways in which each activity can produce effects more reasonably considered exceptions to the rule. They are therefore analogous in that sense.

There are many studies that show prayer results in better health, well-being and so forth. Prayer, in case you don't know, is a form of meditation. Of course you can say, however, that we can acquire the same benefits by doing other things –like practicing focusing the mind with concentration, or gaining more empathy by meditating on 'love' or what have you– but that's beside the point since here I didn't set out to prove God exists but to show that prayer conduces people to doing shit.

Here's one contemporary source : http://tinyurl.com/6o5yd3z

excerpt: "A Duke study of a group of 4,000 people over age 64 found that those who prayed regularly had significantly lower blood pressure than those who prayed intermittently. At Dartmouth Medical Center, one of the best predictors of survival among 232 heart patients was the degree to which they drew comfort from prayer. In studies at several medical centers, prayer had been shown to speed recovery from depression, stroke, hip surgery, rheumatoid arthritis, heart attacks, bypass surgery, and alcoholism."

//So your counter quite clearly misses it's mark.//

Actually it did, bulls eye in fact. I just pointed out you cherry-picked and clearly didnt read the entirety of the studies.

now you are trying to avoid being called out, by shifting topics: ie. exercise can be bad and prayer as a source of comfort. two things not discussed in the studies you cited.

ahh dealing with the likes of you is always fun, but later on mind-numbing

and i'm not here to debate, just to point out the obvious inconsistencies in your argument

You've just proven my point that you missed the point by summarizing my argument thusly:

"exercise can be bad and prayer as a source of comfort."

And I'm "shifting topics" he says. Right. You didn't even understand my argument, yet you go on a rant as though you've been able to refute it.

and i pointed out you clearly didn't understand the studies you posted and arrogantly saying "I shit you not"

so from effectiveness of prayer to phyisical activities of religious people to risks of exercise to prayer as a placebo effect., you are all over the place.

Miguel please focus you sound like a certain cardidad me and twin_skies are know.

What the hell is a cardidad?

Lol, and what in the world is this below? :

"so from effectiveness of prayer to phyisical activities of religious people to risks of exercise to prayer as a placebo effect., you are all over the place. "

You're that dishonest aren't you? You get snippets of your own summation of my argument and mash them together as if there was no train of thought. That can either be funny or stupid of you –or both actually. Yeah, maybe both.

//That can either be funny or stupid of you –or both actually. Yeah, maybe both.//

ooh ad hominems now. reality sounds stupid to you guys to begin with anyways, i'll leave it at that 😉

silly miggy. i read the studies on that little link you provided, nothing in there proves prayer does actual shit.

As i said i just pointed out the studies you provided and how it does not point out prayer works for sick people. and from one of your arguments it seems you believe religious people who exercise are healthier than non-religious people who exercise just because of prayer.

you are also called out on using very old studies. welcome to the 21st century.

nice try weaseling out though.. not going to work.

One would think someone who constantly uses ad hominems against his opponents would forego accusations of ad hominem against them.

You'd also think one who implies he's mastered "debate terminologies" would also know what adhominem means; saying what you did was stupid isn't an ad hominem, saying you're stupid to discredit your argument would be.

He says: " it seems you believe religious people who exercise are healthier than non-religious people who exercise just because of prayer. "

— I never said anything of this sort. You are so incompetent.

//What I was actually comparing wasn't exercise and prayer per se, but the ways in which each activity can produce effects more reasonably considered exceptions to the rule. They are therefore analogous in that sense. //

and yet the articles you posted had nothing to do with prayer, but the healthy lifestyles of the subjects (mormon and adventists)

so we conclude, you posted non-sequitur articles.

"and yet the articles you posted had nothing to do with prayer, but the healthy lifestyles of the subjects (mormon and adventists) "

— Don't narrow your response to just the articles I linked to because you're too lazy or ill-equipped to look at and refute the bigger argument. And, you even missed the last bunch of weblinks I gave which talks specifically of prayer. I was giving an example of how prayer conduces to better health and well-being, not that God exists or that he intervenes because of prayer.

"so we conclude, you posted non-sequitur articles."

–Congratulations on having been able to sneak in some latin words in the hope of convincing others of your hard-won education.

not my fault if you are not aware of debate terminologies. look it up google is your friend. and an fyi this is a debate thread. unless you failed to interpret intensedebate?

just to sum it up, the discussion is the effectiveness of prayer.

one of your rebuttal: the effectiveness of the healthy lifestyle of religious people. and telling us off that you shit us not. 🙂

as i said you did not bother reading the studies posted in your link. i did, however and I will call you out on it.

Oh I'm not "aware of debate terminologies", oh that's it! (lol, he's trying to convince us again, it seems.)

Oh telling someone you 'shit him not' is "telling [him] off" –if he were to be believed.

He doesn't even know the meaning of oft used catchphrases. And it is probably to be expected, given that, despite it having been expressly pointed out to him, he's still under the impression that his "rebuttal" and use of "debate terminologies" has anything to do with what I was arguing.

I'll wager his next response will yet again be eliciting another open mouthed expression of incredulity.

hmm maybe i can add more sesquipedalian loquaciousness into the mix.

cute how simply calling you out on your cherry-picking and laziness devolves this debate to comedy 😉

now we are understand the terminology of i shit you not! let's see what the experts at urban dictionary have to say:
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I” target=”_blank”>www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I shit%…

it means you shit us not: prayer does make us healthier… despite you know proper diet, exercise and not drinking & smoking, i'm sure they had something to do with those religious people being healthy.

And all of that magically validates your interpretation of the phrase. Right. Nevermind that you even posted a non-working link –unless you meant for us to get the impression 'shit you not' means a lot of other weird things. Well, actually it won't be surprising if that's what you intended; everything you've said thus far doesn't really inspire confidence in your ability to react objectively.

On your article also:

– It's better than nothing (i.e. the placebo effect): I'd be remiss in my reporting if I didn't say that some of the benefits derived from prayer can simply be accounted for because the person feels like it's helping, whether it's physiologically helping or not. Placebo effects have been shown to account for 70 percent of the benefit in some procedures. My stance here is that thinking you're doing something to help yourself is a big part of prayer anyway.

For personal benefits prayer does works just as well as placebos, meditations and positive thinking.

As for praying for others… that has been proven to do just as much as… well doing nothing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercess…

This isn't even a sensible reaction to what I said.

Sine you are at least theoretically capable of learning, I'll repeat my actual argument. Copy pasted from my previous post:

There are many studies that show prayer results in better health, well-being and so forth. Prayer, in case you don't know, is a form of meditation. Of course you can say, however, that we can acquire the same benefits by doing other things –like practicing focusing the mind with concentration, or gaining more empathy by meditating on 'love' or what have you– but that's beside the point since here I didn't set out to prove God exists but to show that prayer conduces people to doing shit.

and as one conclusion in your citation: placebo. I do not disagree praying for one's self does help since it sets up a positive state of mind, which meditation and other forms of stress relief does too anyway.

praying for others on the other-hand has been proven to do just as much as doing nothing.

unless you want to keep ignoring the studies in the link i posted.

He says:

"I do not disagree praying for one's self does help since it sets up a positive state of mind, which meditation and other forms of stress relief does too anyway."

Now he get's it. Does he realize though that this was the extent of my argument? No. Why? Because, probably, as with everything, he starts off with sophomoric ill-temperament as a way to impress.

But what have we here? He now wants to make it seem like I was arguing "praying for others" works, thus making him successful in his "rebuttal" and use of "debate terminologies". The competent reader would have already noticed the ground shifting.

I can rest assured the unbiased reasonable thinking person going through our exchange will find every response you've just made, well, shall we say, moronic.

I think he was saying the "change" thingy isn't necessarily the kind you think –or what you try to argue– it should be.

And, actually, prayer does create "concrete and tangible real change", unless you discount health effects, well-being and so forth as "concrete and tangible". It would be odd if you did, however.

And, whether you are aware of it or not, you make the man's point –that you're missing the point– by asking this: "Unless you can rationally explain how prayer is the reason why things happen (say praying for rain causes rain), then my point stands."

That's precisely what he's arguing prayer is not.

//Throughout history, people have found solace in belief and prayer.//

So it's a security blanket. Is that even a proper defense?

To one who lacks any spiritual orientation that's probably the best one can describe it mate!

//To one who lacks any spiritual orientation that's probably the best one can describe it mate! //

Spouting new-age, touchie-feelie rubbish isn't the way to go if you're trying to convince us, mate. You're sounding less like a Catholic apologist, and more like a hippie.

Call me what you want doesn't matter. Your self-contradiction is showing. Can't convince anyone, it's God's grace really. But if you're not searching you won't find!

//Can't convince anyone, it's God's grace really. But if you're not searching you won't find! //

Answering with a non-answer. Quaint.

//To one who lacks any spiritual orientation that's probably the best one can describe it mate! //

I guess it's too much to ask of cognitive ability from those who don't have it. You have my sympathies for your willfull loss.

//One cannot put in materialistically quantifiable terms the effects of prayer because there are no direct material effects of prayer that are a hundred percent definable.//
http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009…

I suppose that's the bloody extent of an atheists understanding of prayer, can't argue with. It's much like teaching a robot what it means to fall in love.

Most if not all atheists here used to be Christians who were even more devout than your average "Christian." So your analogy about teaching a robot what it means to fall in love is not applicable. The correct analogy would be, explaining prayer to the atheists here is like explaining love to a robot who used to be human. Of course this robot would know what it's like to fall in love.

//t's much like teaching a robot what it means to fall in love. //

Oh, it's quite possible, actually 😉

Recommended readings:
http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobits http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/KOS-MOS http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Data

My 13-year old daughter read your reply and asked me if your mentally challenged somehow… not my reply you see but hers. Gave her a bit of a word or two about charity after it made me laugh. What does that say about your response? If I had my way, I would just ask you… SHOW ME HOW!

//My 13-year old daughter read your reply and asked me if your mentally challenged somehow… not my reply you see but hers. //

So you're making under-aged kids fight your battles now?

//If I had my way, I would just ask you… SHOW ME HOW! //

Ooooh, the big, strong man is using all caps on me. What's a wee little tyke like me to do?

So you're making under-aged kids fight your battles now?shows ya where you're at eh laddie?

Twin_Skies,

It's no wonder why his daughter is acting like a bully: we are seeing the fruit that came straight from its tree. And she's 13, he says? Well, that should BullyPolice.org a heads up! She has some potential.

With love and respect,
Aisha

*that should give

Prayer is rooted in faith and belief. If you've lost your faith and belief then you lose the core of what it means to pray. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi! What to me is a farce is the false assumption that prayer means not to act (perhaps that is why it has lost its meaning to you and others). So to define what prayer is what it does in purely material terms is idiotic. it's like explaining what chocolate tastes like without actually tasting it!

//Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi! What to me is a farce is the false assumption that prayer means not to act (perhaps that is why it has lost its meaning to you and others).//

Tell that to your brethren, please.
http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html

//So to define what prayer is what it does in purely material terms is idiotic. it's like explaining what chocolate tastes like without actually tasting it! //

Poor analogy. One can explain how white chocolate tastes like through the way its chemical composition reacts with the biochemical processes of the tastebuds.

And frankly, trying to justify that prayer can't be explain in purely material terms is a cop-out – it's a physical act much like anything else, and saying it cannot be explained is special pleading.

Courtier's Reply, anyone?

Actually this article is the cop-out. Prayer is a physical act externally but I can't begin to expect you to understand its spiritual effects nor trying to explain the material effects of it. So it basically comes on as a kind of bloody whining.

//Prayer is a physical act externally but I can't begin to expect you to understand its spiritual effects nor trying to explain the material effects of it.//

Courtier's reply 😉

Hey mate, that would be true if CAtholics really didn't act enough but in truth and pound for pound or in your case, peso for peso, Christians/Catholics give and do much more for the poor and for charity than any other group in the world, atheists and secularists included… and still find time to pray on top of that!

his logic and line of reasoning is reminiscent of my favorite catholic apologist.

in this website.

i wonder………..

If prayer to you is repeating words without acting on it, then that's not prayer, that's laziness. Prayer is the result of an acknowledgement that when our best efforts fail, there is someone who is in control and even if it doesn't seem so there is always a grand plan. What prayer isn't is wishing and what God isn't is a fairy godmother.

//Prayer is the result of an acknowledgement that when our best efforts fail, there is someone who is in control and even if it doesn't seem so there is always a grand plan.//

In the end, it's delusion.

//. Prayer is the result of an acknowledgement that when our best efforts fail, there is someone who is in control and even if it doesn't seem so there is always a grand plan.//

We pinoys have a phrase for this: "Bahala na sa diyos."

Sorry mate but what you sayis I believe called Filipino folk religiosity and not authentic Christian prayer. I have met many Filipinos who are far from your caricature of a praying person. Would be nice if you could truly have a better grasp of these things before you answer. G'day

Hi crusader. You misspelled your own name.

Thanks Bloke but seriously you're correcting my spelling? Could it be that I intended that because someone else did get that name? Let me give you some advice, in debate fora, it is unwise and shallow to correct grammar and spelling because it shows a kind of, pardon my bluntness eh, empty-headedness. Cheers!

I'm not a bloke! 😛

Actually I thought your name was cool. Sorry.

Thank you and Begging your pardon Lassie!

"Let me give you some advice, in debate fora, it is unwise and shallow to correct grammar and spelling because it shows a kind of, pardon my bluntness eh, empty-headedness. Cheers! "

– ego (bull's eye hit!)

Indeed he has 🙁
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_of_Bouillon

Godfrey, you're obviously using the namesake of a Frankish Knight. If that is the case, you should be trying to emulate a Germanic accent, instead of that atrocity of a british accent you are currently using to torture us with.

If you're going to post under a fake account, at least do you bloody homework.

//Sorry mate but what you sayis I believe called Filipino folk religiosity and not authentic Christian prayer. I have met many Filipinos who are far from your caricature of a praying person.//

No true scotsman fallacy.

Perhaps its just that you can't make the distinction but I don't blame you.

//Perhaps its just that you can't make the distinction but I don't blame you. //

Or perhaps you're just evading the points being made. Seriously, that faux-british accent isn't helping your case, either.

Godfrey_Buillon, I have a question for you:

WHICH IS MORE POWERFUL, PRAYER OR POSITIVE THINKING?

As a former Catholic who has been disheartened by the religion's hierarchy, I am at odds with our so-called faith in a God. You see, I am a huge fan of Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, the scientists at CERN, and all those rockstars in physics who are determined to reduce sub-atomic particles into vibrating strings (String Theory), or those who are trying to find out why quantum particles are starting to appear and disappear randomly (as in the Multiverse Theory). This is not a metaphorical question designed to challenge your intellect, but I want to hear you rationalize your own statement:

"Prayer is the result of an acknowledgement that when our best efforts fail, there is someone who is in control and even if it doesn't seem so there is always a grand plan. "

It's quite funny how people praise string theory, multiverses, neo-cosmology, quantum mechanics etc when this can't answer one basis question: why do particles that are said to appear and disappears follow that particular quantum law? Where did that quantum law originate from? It does not address the issue of ex nihilo nihil fit. It appears that the “nothing” physicists talk about is just an empty nothing and not a non- existent nothing. Back to square one lassie.

when science tries to find out answers, it gives out evidence of some external force that can be observed, measured, quantified, documented that contributes to the experience of being human. when subatomic particles appear and disappear at random, ur god or whoever (as claimed by religious zealots) is out of the question, and

OUT OF THE EQUATION.

Zealot now am I? I don't expect science to explain God anymore than you should expect science to ever explain origin from non-existence.At least as a Christian I recognize and appreciate the limits of science and it is this recognition that has allowed Christians to make science progress over the last thousand years. The University system, scientific method, planetary motion and even the big bang cosmology was proposed by a priest! Lassie, you seem to make science your god… so back to you, a science zealot!

precisely. science has no limits.

idiots and bigots like you, HAVE.

“Science has no limits”… hahaha that's not a very scientific statement, is it? Can I use your statement as an example of where science worship and zealotry can lead to?

I've been reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh, and it's no surprise that ur username of choice is as outdated as ur world views. A Frankish knight who was the savior of Jerusalem from the years 1096-1100 AD, must have had taken a great many blows to the head, and therefore, I don't think u need to debate so much more. Go see a neurologist and find out what a 21st century doctor's diagnosis is. Pity….

My poor woman you actually contributed to their coffers by falling for their fictional work and worst of all you actually believe it! Bet your a Dan Brown fan as well… That speaks a pile about your discerning intellect. It's probably a good bedtime story so sweet dreams Madame!

Why settle for a mere statement? 😉
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Adeptus_Mechanicu…

All hail the Omnissiah!

"At least as a Christian I recognize and appreciate the limits of science and it is this recognition that has allowed Christians to make science progress over the last thousand years. The University system, scientific method, planetary motion and even the big bang cosmology was proposed by a priest! " – Godfrey_Buillon

– Let me see. First, they held Galileo Galilei under house arrest when he proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around. Next, they put a price on Charles Darwin's head since he presented his theory of Natural Selection, thereby reducing Creationism as a fairytale. Isaac Newton kept his true religious beliefs secret, for fear of persecution, until literally his dying day.

"so back to you, a science zealot! " – – Godfrey_Buillon

– well at least none of us here is acting like a defeated, crybaby like you. yes, i am a PROUD SCIENCE ZEALOT.

"The University system, scientific method, planetary motion and even the big bang cosmology was proposed by a priest!"

– yeah right, priests who also formed the INQUISITION, priests who authored the MALLEUS MALEFICARUM (Heinrich Krammer & Jacob Sprenger), priests who signed the final DEATH SENTENCE of my country's national hero (Bernardino Nozaleda), priests who helped NAZI MURDERERS escape to Argentina after the holocaust (Alois Hudal), and before I forget, priests who PROTECT PEDOPHILES under their wing (Karol Józef Wojtyła & Josef Ratzinger).

– woooohhh…. this is so much fun! 😉

… and you call yourself a thinker… hahaha!

and you call yourself a debater. double HAHAHAHA! :p

WOW!

NOW WE GOT A BULLY HERE…. bring it on.

when running out of proper arguments, YOU TURN YOUR BACK ON FACTS. when confronted by facts, YOU RESORT TO BULLYING. when successfully bullying others, YOU END UP WITH NOTHING.

well, keep going.

And you call referring to the clergy abuse as an argument to everything wrong about belief… That's argument? Really? seriously? G'day

Pls don't make the mistake of thinking that Christians – Catholics specifically, are neither optimists nor doers. If we look at history we won't see a conflict between prayer, optimism and acting.The best argument for prayer can be found inSaints who did all three effectively and changed the world! The difference is that the Christian optimism goes beyond mere “positive thinking” because it is rooted in hope in Christ whereas the latter is rooted solely on the self.

for a person who uses the name of a medieval french knight, why am i not surprised? haha. saints, jesus christ, all that dung…

as a freethinker, i am open to the power of the human mind. i shun at the thought of worshipping a (mythical) Jewish guy who the Romans crucified 2,000 years ago, whose vicar is doing a sucky job. crimen sollicitationis, anyone?

and as for ur "If we look at history " —> The 21st century world is changed by experiments, actions, and explorations. NOT SAINTS.

I have read much about the Filipino Freerthinker's method of ad absurdum and ad hominem argumentation from previous posters. I must say that it's disappointing and lackluster to read a “scientific” Philipina resort to the same. The changes of the 21st century stands on the shoulders of giants… Christian giants who saw order in the universe. G'day!

"Christian giants who saw order in the universe. G'day! "

– ur a shame to humanity.

Contrare madame, she who has no idea of whence they came is apt to repeat the errors of the past! Christianity is undoubtedly the catalyst of scientific thought and you can deny it all you want but that would be a life lived as a fib. Now that is what is embarrassing!

"Christianity is undoubtedly the catalyst of scientific thought…"

– and what of the Galileo Affair? NOW THAT IS EMBARASSING!

ur like a 50-year old macho man who claims to be the champion of catholicism, yet regresses to his pre-school stage whenever confronted by historical facts. and is that how you attack me, stating ur personal opinions to my face? pity…

"I must say that it's disappointing and lackluster to read a "scientific" Philipina resort to the same. "

– spoken like a hypocrite. good job!

You strike me as someone who has a lot of anger and bitterness being channelled towards Christianity! I hope one day you can be at peace with God and yourself. Certainly we will pray for that.

"I hope one day you can be at peace with God and yourself. Certainly we will pray for that. "

– u dont assume to speak in behalf of a god, dont you? ur starting to sound so morally corrupt.

"I hope one day you can be at peace with God and yourself. Certainly we will pray for that."

– praying? okay. and while you're at it, why dont you also pray for the following? i'll enumerate:

1. The 16,324 individuals who have alleged that they were abused as minors by priests in the US alone.
2. The 6,115 clerics "not implausibly" and "credibly" accused in 1950-2011 of sexually abusing minors.
3. And of course SNAP, the priest abuse survivor’s network, that filed a comprehensive criminal complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Netherlands of crimes against humanity, alleging a worldwide priest child abuse cover-up in the Catholic Church, that they may they be served justice.

– Now tell me, WHAT DOES YOUR GOD SAY TO THIS? And if ur going to spit in the face of secularism, try arguing with these people:
http://www.vatileaks.com/ http://www.bishop-accountability.org/