By Arielle Hawkins, CNN
Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.
From the Blog:
CNN: Pew poll: Obama opens up lead over Romney among Catholics
President Barack Obama has opened up a significant lead among Catholic voters, a crucial swing voting bloc, according to a recent Pew poll. Obama leads opponent Mitt Romney among Catholic voters by 54% to 39%, according to the survey, conducted from September 12 to 16 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
CNN: Photo of woman with facial hair leads to conversation, understanding
A picture of a woman with facial hair wearing a turban posted to the social media site Reddit has garnered a firestorm of Internet reaction and has taught at least two Ohio college students lessons in graciousness, humanities and religious studies. The picture was posted five days ago with the caption, "I'm not sure what to conclude from this."A 20-year old college student, who asked to remain anonymous, says one of his friends took the photo at a library at The Ohio State University. He's "not really sure why," but after he and his friends shared the picture amongst themselves, he posted it to Reddit.
CNN: Breaking Yom Kippur fast, American Jews talk Obama, Netanyahu
As Jews gathered together at sundown Wednesday to break the Yom Kippur fast, in some homes it wasn’t just food that was being shared, but also opinion on the rising tension between the leaders of the United States and Israel over the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.
CNN: Producer of inflammatory anti-Islam film arrested, ordered held without bail
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man allegedly behind the inflammatory film "Innocence of Muslims," was ordered held without bail Thursday after being arrested in California and accused of violating his probation. "He engaged in a likely pattern of deception both to his probation officers and the court," Judge Suzanne Segal said in issuing her ruling.
Tweet of the Day:
[tweet https://twitter.com/SSalzbergNews/status/251522602789642240%5D
Belief on TV:
Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation says more moderation is needed.
Enlightening Reads:
Religion News Service: Some Mormons suggest fasting to help Romney’s campaign
A number of Mormons seem to think that fellow believer Mitt Romney, now slumping in the polls, needs a little divine intervention for his performance at the upcoming Oct. 3 presidential debate. They’ve been circulating a request via email that sympathetic Latter-day Saints join them in forgoing food and water on Sunday in a collective effort to support the candidate.
The Guardian: Priceless Tibetan Buddha statue looted by Nazis was carved from meteorite
A priceless Buddha statue looted by Nazis in Tibet in the 1930s was carved from a meteorite which crashed to the Earth 15,000 years ago, according to new research. The relic bears a Buddhist swastika on its belly – an ancient symbol of luck that was later co-opted by the Nazis in Germany. Analysis has shown the statue is made from an incredibly rare form of nickel-rich iron present in falling stars.
The Huffington Post: Buddhism's Diamond Sutra: The Extraordinary Discovery Of The World's Oldest Book
Ask people to name the world's oldest printed book and the common reply is Gutenberg's Bible. Few venture that the answer is a revered Buddhist text called the Diamond Sutra, printed in 868 A.D. Or that by the time Gutenberg got ink on his fingers nearly 600 years later - and his revolutionary technology helped usher in the Enlightenment - this copy of the Diamond Sutra had been hidden for several centuries in a sacred cave on the edge of the Gobi Desert and would remain there for several more. Its discovery is the result of a series of accidents and its significance realized belatedly.
Religion News Service: From Roman perch, American Cardinal Raymond Burke sparks controversy, exerts influence
When some American Catholics worry that the hierarchy is tilting toward the Republican Party, or taking the church back to the 19th century (or earlier), they often point to Cardinal Raymond Burke as Exhibit A. That’s understandable, because love him or loathe him – and few are on the fence – Burke’s many pronouncements on politics and the culture wars have given both fans and critics plenty of ammunition for their respective views.
The Guardian: Nigeria protests after Saudis deport female hajj pilgrims
Saudi Arabian officials have deported 241 Nigerian women from the annual hajj pilgrimage, and are threatening to send back hundreds of others said to be traveling without male chaperones, prompting a diplomatic row between the two countries. Nigerian officials responsible for organizing the hajj said three planes were turned back from the Saudi city of Medina, while a further 1,000 women were held in detention centers in Mecca, some for up to five days. Under Saudi law, women are minors who require permission from a male relative to work, leave the country or, in some cases, receive medical treatment.
Join the conversation…
CNN: Interfaith group protests ad that says 'Support Israel. Defeat Jihad'
Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious leaders gathered in New York to protest advertisements that claim "Support Israel. Defeat Jihad" smattered across 10 city subways stations Monday and to debut a counter-ad that is due up in the same stations at the end of the week, according to the interfaith group. "I am Muslim," explained Adem Carroll of the Muslim progressive traditionalist alliance on the steps of New York City's City Hall. "On a personal note, when I ride the subway and see messages smeared that demean me, I am scared."
dear mother earth thank you for all the anmitae and inanmitae things that you have created on this universe including the human race making life rich , allowing your grace to enjoy your creation, give us the strength to protect what you have created and to establish a peaceful existence on the globebless me with the highest good in my remarriage, financial stability and happiness of my 2 daughters and may all prayers request be granted ,may rebecca be blessed
Prayer really changes things.
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent truths is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent truths, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
I tried it, and it did not work.
I prayed that you would go away, and yet you are still here.
Mabye mine is busted.....
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!
Prayer really changes things
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent truths is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent truths, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
My Baby Princess,Thank you for all your support & help in mainkg "PRAYER OF EVERYONE" ( http://www.prayer4every1.com ) get up off the ground level. May God shine on you always!Love your, Mama
Niknak... It's pretty easy to PROVE that there is a Creator, by the way. Most of us believe that the world around us EXIST. Further, most of us believe that the world around us had a beginning commonly referred to as the Big Bang. This leaves us with two possible options: Either the world was CREATED by someone knowng how to do it or, alternatively, it came into existence all by itself from nothing. If you will SHOW ME a couple of things that came into existence all by themselves from nothing go ahead. In return, I'll gladly show you a lot of things that were CREATED by those knowing how to do it. Deal?
@23: the universe didn't come from nothing and science doesn't state that it did come from nothing. science states we know down the nano-second of what happen during the big bang, what happen before we are still trying to find out.
it is only religious people that have that flawed thought of something from nothing. where did your god come from? how was it created? basically you don't know, except someone told you that god was always here or they avoided the question all together.
" If you will SHOW ME a couple of things that came into existence all by themselves from nothing go ahead." something that "created" from nothing. energy. atoms have been found to pop in and out of our exsistance; following that logical observation atoms could have just popped into exsistance from another universe basically creating "something out of nothing" because energy makes up everything in exsistance. you are energy, just in a solid form. energy can't be created nor destoryed, it merely changes states from energy to matter and back again.
now your turn please show me something YOUR GOD created.........and please no car jokes or anything about none living matter that humans have built.
You can't learn anything about the nothing before the big bang. At no point in our universe's history has a pre-big-bang state existed.
Also, I don't know of any cosmologist who says that "nothing" existed before the big bang. The claim I have herd is that whatever existed before the big bang is unknowable.
@huebert: i watched an amazing docu.mentary on natgeo about preposed theories on "before" the bigbang. the one most scienctists are reviewing now is on that space and time don't stop or start but are how lines on a piece of paper are..........just keep going on in all directions forever. thus no "before" the bigbang is needed to explain the start of the universe. i love the dicoveries humans are making in all fields of scienctific study. maybe you would like to check it out. very good docu.mentary.
Thiests that believe the Big Bang happened would say God existed before the Big Bang. Unless God is nothing, then some "thing" existed before the Big Bang. Therefore "the absence of space, matter and time" is a very poor definition of nothing. I think there was some "thing" before the Big Bang, that obviously is not made of space, time or matter. I just don't why it has to be God.
@WASP
I haven't seen that yet but that is exactly the kind of show that I like. I don't have cable so I'll see it as soon as it comes out on Netflix. 🙂
Thinker23: "Further, most of us believe that the world around us had a beginning commonly referred to as the Big Bang."
1. Saying most believe something lends no credibility to that "something".
2. Even if the Big Bang is valid, doesn't mean that it was the first beginning. It might only be the last detectible "beginning".
Use of the word “nothing” is contrary to what the Bible actually says. The Bible says in the beginning God. The Bible says God is matter of a form that exists outside of our known dimensions of space, time, length and width. God is unknowable by man and we can only understand that which God reveals to us.
Religion and Science agree as to the nature of God that is observable or testable by the 5 senses as that is all science can measure. We agree “God” (if God exists) is unknowable. We agree we do not have the capacity to know or understand “God”. We agree the more science advances the more we are aware of the power and vastness of lies outside the boundaries of scientific knowledge. The more we learn of our universe the less likely the probability that we exist by accident or chance.
As to the creation according to the Bible God created what can be seen from that which was not visable. This is very different from the concept “nothing”.
Thinker wrote:
"Religion and Science agree as to the nature of God that is observable or testable by the 5 senses as that is all science can measure." No. That's a ridiculous claim to make about what science might "agree" on.
"We agree the more science advances the more we are aware of the power and vastness of lies outside the boundaries of scientific knowledge." That "sentence" doesn't eve make any sense.
"The more we learn of our universe the less likely the probability that we exist by accident or chance."
There is no evidence to support that claim.
Correction to my middle sentence:
That "sentence" doesn't even make sense.
old ben
“That's a ridiculous claim to make about what science might "agree" on.”
=>science does not have any tools to measure “God” or if there is no “God” science does not have any tools to measure that which outside the boundaries of known science. Are you suggesting some new imaginary science nobody has heard about?
"We agree the more science advances the more we are aware of the power and vastness of lies outside the boundaries of scientific knowledge." That "sentence" doesn't even make any sense.”
=>correction; “We agree the more science advances the more we are aware of the power and vastness of the unknown outside the boundaries of scientific knowledge”
"The more we learn of our universe the less likely the probability that we exist by accident or chance."
There is no evidence to support that claim.
=>Just one example out of hundreds would be the claim 20 years ago that random chance could account for the original formation of base organic compounds. Today we know that random chance did not have sufficient time to operate.
Another example is the discovery of Dark Energy accelerating the expansion of the universe at the exact speed to allow galaxies to form. The odds of this exact expansion occurring is x to the power of 720. Those odds forced Stephen Hawking into a multiverse position which is not proven or provable at this time.
WASP... For starters, WE DON'T KNOW to the nanosecond of what happened during the Big Bang. We're still guessing if the Inflation Theory was correct. We, however, know (or believe to know) what happened after the first couple of microseconds. Further, most scientists believe that THERE WAS NO "BEFORE" the Big Bang as the time, being part of the timespace continuum, probably, did not exist then. Still further, atoms DO NOT pop in and out of existence, PARTICLES (bozons as well as fermions) do. Further again, while everything in this Universe seems to be energy one can argue that the Creator used energy to make everything else in accordance with the rules he created as well (we call these rules "laws of Nature").
Huebert... Either there was "something" before the Big Bang or there was "nothing". Another possibility is that there was no "before". Each of these possibilities requires something (or someone) to TRIGGER the process of the Big Bang.
Exactly Thinker, but that something does not have to be God.
old ben... I DID NOT SAY THE THINGS you've put in my mouth.
@Thinker. I used cut and paste of your words. Of course you said them.
@thinker
If there was no "before" how could their be a trigger? Same question applies if their was nothing. In order for there to be a trigger there has to be something. But there is still no reason to as.sume that the something is a god.
@Thinker23:
Also – I'm not the one describing science. You started that off with: "Religion and Science agree as to the nature . ."
No matter what you say after that – you cannot prove. It's a completely ridiculous way to start and argument for or against anything.
Now that you corrected the sentence that made no sense, I would not argue that point.
And I will stick by my last remark that "There is no evidence to support that claim". Which was in response to your statement – "The more we learn of our universe the less likely the probability that we exist by accident or chance."
Yes, Huebert. I always consider the notion that there might have been other "beginnings" before the big bang, that possibly could have not been at all like the big bang. I think scientists and religious nutcases both are too limiting in their consideration of possibilities during discussion. But I put more blame on the religious for that because they are often just stuck in circular validation. I can't much fault scientists for being that way because it is their job to proceed carefully – both for consideration of possibilities and for expansion of certainty.
Thinker23, who is this "us" you refer to? You and the frog in your pocket?
@old ben
I'm not aware of any scientist that claims the big bang is the absolute beginning. All the Big Bang Theory states is that the current state of the universe (matter energy etc.) started with the expansion of a singularity. The theory does not exclude anything before the occurance.
I should changethat to Big Bang cosmologist.
hawaiiguest
God spoke the universe into existence...................................If you want to call it a big bang great.......does the sound of Gods voice or your big bang actually carry in the vacu-me of space?
@fred
And once again you show all you have are moronic assertions and stupidity on your side. I'm not going to get into this with you AGAIN, since you have consistently shown that you are incapable of discussing anything even remotely honoestly.
hawaiiguest, scientist can NEVER state where it all came from. That's why the Big Bang theory is just a theory.
hawaiiguest
If you prefer to say I don't know that is your option and default position. We have 25,000 some odd manuscripts and the dead sea scrolls but hey why not default to the position of I don't know instead of God spoke it into existence. Oh, I have more volumn of support than you do but then again you will default to the Greeks and use rules of logic that say even though believers have tons of docu-mentation and I have not an ounce my default position is more logical. While you are at it dont forget the nature of the Greeks and do not forget they had to bow to the monument of the unknown god because their own logice prevented them from understanding the foolishnes of their own way.
You are much the same as you bow to the empty default position and just like the Greeks somehow you cannot understand that your position leads you to emptyness. Interesting that the Bible will lead you into the light and you reject that in favor of Plato that leads you to an empty unknown .............................that is de fault in your logic
Thinker23, each time I come on to this blog I find you atheists grow sadder and more desperate as time goes by.
Hubert... The concept of "before" is related to the concept of "time" which in turn is one of the dimensions of the Universe metrics usually referred to as "space time". The concept of "trigger" , however, is related to the idea of the initial "push" of the button that started the entire process of the "space time" development . As an example you may consider the turn of the ignition key starting your car engine that will continue running by itself in accordance to the rules defined by its designers.
Well this is funny. A somewhat interesting discussion of the beginnings of the universe, and then old fred comes along with his worthless bible thinking it matters to any of this? lol as they say. I don't care about any damn manuscripts or scrolls – it's all the same. All that crap was born out of folklore. And all that folklore was born out of the fear things science could not yet explain. And ever since before the bible, before writing, some men have always wanted to make some quick "money" or gain control over people at the expense of the fearful. True that we don't know an awful lot about the universe and its beginnings. But as civilized people, we should be able to recognize ancient fiction when it is staring us in the face.
mama kindless... There are many things in this world we did not discover yet. This interesting fact does not necessarily prove that these things DO NOT EXIST. Further, most of us, humans, here will agree that the Stonehedge or the Sphynx were CREATED by human beings thousands of years ago because we KNOW that we, humans are capable of doing it. On the other hand, when we face something humans are NOT CAPABLE of creating (at least not yet) we declare that these things came into existence by themselves, "naturally" and with no external involvement. Some time ago I've asked a poster here what would he say if a giant 1-mile-long spaceship was discovered at the back side of the Moon. I've asked if he would accept such a spaceship to be a proof of advanced alien life. My opponent suggested that he would suspect "us" (the US) or the Russians to be the builders of such spaceship despite the obious impossibility of it. My point here is that those rejecting the very idea of the Creator of the Universe actually practice a FAITH and reject any possibility of alternative thinking.
@Thinker23: It should be obvious from my reply that I don't give any credibility to anything that man has brought forth so far to try to explain creation or the possibility that some higher being is still "out there" keeping track of things. That's why, when I see a post such as the one from this "fred", I tend to go off. I think it hurts society to think that way – to give credibility to folklore.
But I certainly have no problem considering *any* possibility that someone might come up with regarding creation, as long as the position taken includes that it is just theory for which there is no evidence. I'm agnostic when it comes to deities – I don't think it's helpful to say there is or there isn't or there was or there wasn't when we just don't know.
So, in a way, I would kind of agree that someone who completely rejects the possibility of any deity as having more of a faith in that opinion than an agnostic where, in my opinion, faith is not present since you have to show me the goods where I can use my natural senses to detect something. If you must say I have a faith too, just because I only "believe" that which is detectable from my senses born by nature, then fine – I won't argue that point. But it should be clear to you that you won't find me worshipping anything or being afraid or some higher being that may or may not be out there base on old political sales literature and folklore.
mama kindles
There is a vast difference between folklore and the things of God. Your suggestion that God belongs in with the nonsense of man made gods and religion is born out of the same ignorance you accuse believers of exhibiting at times. Neither you nor I have any scientifically verifiable facts whatsoever that explains origin of life or purpose of existence. You believe strongly that the vast unknown and that which is unknowable is comprised of matter that fits the materialist world view. There is no data to support that belief yet you maintain it. I believe the unknown or currently unknowable is comprised of matter that we cannot know simply because it is outside of the present boundaries of scientific knowledge. We have evidence (scientifically accepted and proven) as to the power and scope of that unknown. What we know fits the explanation given of God in the Bible and I accept that. Non believers are welcome to wait for the unknowable to fit their materialistic faith but it is ignorance to accept your faith without acknowledging it is without foundation.
fred wrote: "There is a vast difference between folklore and the things of God. "
Your "things of God" (if you mean any part of religion) don't reflect anything that is credible in my opinion. So, as I said, although I don't deny a higher power (nor confirm it), it in no way is validated by any kind of religious notion that has ever been made to date that I have heard of. I am quite familiar with Christian doctrine and it is not trustworthy to support any kind of reality in this world, much less be used as a way to describe some possible deity.
Then you said "Your suggestion that God belongs in with the nonsense of man . ." Just stop right there. I didn't say that at all. My suggestion is that religion is the nonsense of man. God or some possible deity has nothing to do with me refuting all religion. That's only from your point of view because you can't separate those notions as part of your belief. I CAN, however, separate those notions and speak about them independently.
Later, you said "You believe strongly that the vast unknown and that which is unknowable is comprised of matter that fits the materialist world view." That does not entirely describe my opinion. I am saying that, to date, that is all I have to go on, but should some non-materialistic ent!ty present itself, it could sway me. That's my more agnostic side. My being open to the possibility of a deity (but not convinced that any religion has helped to validate that notion), is not the same as what you just said. If you had read my many posts more carefully, you would have picked up on that difference by now.
And then you say " There is no data to support that belief." Well that goes away since you misunderstood what I just said. But in any event – I would say there is no data to support any belief about deities – one way or the other which leads to the next thing.
Lastly, you said: "We have evidence (scientifically accepted and proven) as to the power and scope of that unknown. What we know fits the explanation given of God in the Bible and I accept that." No you don't. There are theories about the power and forces involved in the beginnings of the universe, some of them widely accepted, but, even without religion involved, not much at all is proven. As soon as you involve religion, you can only do so from the ideas of, like I say, ancient people who were either afraid and believe what someone else told them, or ancient people who were good at BS'ing people and realized they could make a buck or control someone else doing so – a vicious cycle of lying. Religion is not something of God. Religion is something of man. The unknown is the unknown. Whether a deity is it there or not, whether it ever was, whether it will ever be – no one knows as of now, in my opinion.
Mama kindless... It seems that we're in agreement about almost everything in this discussion and it makes me feel good. Thank you!
Veritas and others... Does penicillin help? According to your theories it does not as people still die from lung inflammation and other similar diseases. Grown-up people having a clue of what they're talking about think differently because they know how to run statistical tests and interpret the results. Yes, there is no evidence that prayer works as it's a FAITH issue based on BELIEF. On the other hand, there is no evidence that prayer DOES NOT work and it's a FAITH issue based on a belief (that prayer does not change anything) as well.
@23: well penicilin does work if used for the proper reason and not used for the slightest sniffle.
penicilin is a great cure all ki11 all when it comes to bacterial infections, however with the over use by terrified parents and over use in our food stuffs, it is having less and less of an effect due to the bacterium adapting/evolving in real time to deal with the change in their enviroment.
if i pray over a sick hamster,dog, frog, cat, etc etc etc and it doesn't become better or cured, then logical conclusion is prayer doesn't work.
if something fails to produce any result at all it is accepted as untrue until newer information can be provided.
That's because the virus are mutating. That's what atheists should say about how they came to be. They mutated.
WASP... One of my friends bought 50 lottery tickets and won nothing. According to your logic this interesting fact PROVES that no one even wins in a lottery. To make it easier for you I'll apply the lottery example to praying. The more lottery tickets you but the higher yhour chances of winning will become, however, there will never be 100% certainty that you'll win the lottery. Similarly, the more you pray the higher the chances of your prayers to be effective will become, however, there will never be 100% certainty that your prayers will materialize. On the other hand, if you DO NOT pray, none of your prayers will be fulfilled. Did it become clear now?
Veritas and others... Does penicillin help? According to your theories it does not as people still die from lung inflammation and other similar diseases. Grown-up people having a clue of what they're talking about think differently because they know how to run statistical tests and interpret the results. Yes, there is no evidence that prayer works as it's a FAITH issue based on BELIEF. On the other hand, there is no evidence that prayer DOES NOT work and it's a FAITH issue as well.
Actually their is plenty of evidence that prayer has no effect. A quick Google search on the Efficacy of prayer will turn up all the evidence you should need.
Huebert, why don't you insist that everything found on the net is true. Hey, isn't there a commercial that laughs at this gullibility?
Huebert... It is not possible IN PRINCIPLE to offer evidence that something (in this case, effectiveness of prayer) DOES NOT exist.
This prayer is a must in my evedyray prayers..it reminds us to be one always n seek grace of the almighty..i recommend all the couples to recite this prayer by holding their hands b4 going to bed..
"Religion News Service: Some Mormons suggest fasting to help Romney’s campaign"
Perhaps they would consider forgoing voting altogether in favor of fasting/prayer.
Prayer changes Jack Squat.
Congratulations, "Atheism is healthy for children and other living things". Assuming "Jack Squat" equates to 0.0%, your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are most likely true. The degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is 99.9%. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is: "SAFE BET".
Morning all.
Another beautiful day without god(s).
@nik: yeah i'm enjoying watching it rain here in brooklyn. 🙂
Posted by the atheists who believe the Da Vinci codes movie to be true. So much for your credibility.....
Which atheist thinks that was true?
This one doesn't.
It was a made up piece of fiction, like your god myth.
I did not even bother to read/watch it. I have much better things to do with my time then follow fiction.
Prayer changes things
No, it doesn't. Prayer didn't help the 11 milion victims of the Holocaust. And it didn't help ANY of our wounded veterans, in ANY war throughout history. Or were they all just not praying hard enough to your invisible friend?
Mirosal... Can you PROVE that without prayers the number of Holocaust victims would not indeed be 11 million? In return I'll show you that WITH prayers is was "only" SIX million.
There were approx. 6 million Jews. There were also approx. 5 million others, including but not limited to, Poles, Gypsies, Slavs, political undesirables, ho'mo'se'xuals, handicapped.. the list goes on and on.
It is a low end sleaze that uses the misfortunes and sufferings of others to bolster its self serving bias. What a disgusting thing to do.
Mirosal... You did not answer my question... Can you PROVE that without prayers the number of people murdered by the Nazis WOULD NOT be higher?
we're talking about a matter of historical fact. And you can't tell me that when they walked into those chambers, they KNEW what was to happen, that they didn't start begging for their "god" to save them. It doesn't matter if you want to know if they DIDN'T pray. You can bet your bottom dollar that they did, because you KNOW you would have as well, and it didn't help them, just like it would not have helped you..
@23: "Can you PROVE that without prayers the number of people murdered by the Nazis WOULD NOT be higher?"
ok two things:
1) can you prove prayer does anything at all? if so make my computer stop working right now. lmao didn't think so.
2) it wasn't prayer but thousands of soldiers giving their lives to free the people in the concentration camps and those countries conquered by hitler. it was ACTION, not words spoken into space that saved lives.
He does not have to prove it, as he did not make the assertion that prayer changes things.
You have to prove it, like you have to prove your assertion that there is a god.
The burden of proof is on the persons who make the claim.
It is not our burden to prove it false.
Prayer changes nothing. Never did.
I'd like to propose a couple of simple experiments.
1) Measure the rate of radioactive decay in a small sample of, say, phosphorous-32. Now have believers pray over another sample. Will the decay rate change? That is, can prayer influence the weak nuclear force?
2) Set up two colonies of a single strain of Drosophila. Carefully measure the lifespan of the flies in each colony while believers pray over one. Are the lifespans different? Can prayer add a single day or hour to the lifespan of flies?
More come to be mind, but these aren't out of reach of even an industrious high-school student or undergrad.
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
.....
So pray for some imagination.
Thinker23. One would imagine that if prayer were effective, there would be no victims of the holocaust. The bot made the claim that prayer works and often follows up saying it is proven. It is not proven – there is no evidence that prayer works or did I miss the rain in Texas immediately after Perry had his public prayers.
Prayer has never been about gimme gimme. Prayer is a conversation with God and prayer is not an easy quick fix, prayer changes things.
Will prayer change a flat tire?
Mirosal, there weren't 6 million Jews in the entire world at that time.
Toomuch... There were about 10 million Jews in Europe alone back in 1939. Only 3 million Jews were left in Europe in 1945.