Subtle

[Slack3r78]

http://imgur.com/WLLVu.png

[Wraith]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/wraithakamrak/cog/1_in_4.png

[National Kato]

It's not like FOX News is trying to spin this. Here's CNN's headline:

Nearly 1 in 4 people worldwide is Muslim, report says (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/07/muslim.world.population/index.html)

It's a fact. I don't see anything underhanded about the phrasing.

[roboninja]

It's not like FOX News is trying to spin this. Here's CNN's headline:

Nearly 1 in 4 people worldwide is Muslim, report says (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/07/muslim.world.population/index.html)

It's a fact. I don't see anything underhanded about the phrasing.

I don't think it is as much the headline, but rather the stories linked below and around it. The "Should we be worried?" vibe.

[nnanji]

America's Prophet: Moses, Jesus, or Lady GaGa? You decide.

[Slack3r78]

I don't think it is as much the headline, but rather the stories linked below and around it. The "Should we be worried?" vibe.

This.

The fact that WAR and PAKISTAN are so close to it, along with the usual "Christians are so persecuted in America! QQ" memes around it aren't coincidence.

[Vigil80]

I'd be more concerned with the ratio of radical muslims.

[Kelegacy]

It's not like FOX News is trying to spin this. Here's CNN's headline:

Nearly 1 in 4 people worldwide is Muslim, report says (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/07/muslim.world.population/index.html)

It's a fact. I don't see anything underhanded about the phrasing.

"Where they live may surprise you." I think that's an attempt to play on people's fears. Oh no, I live near a Muslim!!!

Why should Muslims living near me surprise me? This is America, after all. I fear them like I fear Christians (and maybe less). :) Radicals exist on both sides. Those are the ones to worry about.

[johnperkins21]

Eh, just the fact that so many people believe in fairy tale myths is enough to scare me. Doesn't matter which fairy tale, they're all centered around bigotry and a sense of entitlement and righteousness.

[Vigil80]

Doesn't matter which fairy tale, they're all centered around bigotry and a sense of entitlement and righteousness.
That's not really true, but that's also probably not the direction a discussion should go, either.

[Ink Asylum]

"Where have all the Christians gone?"

Stoke that xenophobia, Fox News.

[MachEnergy]

"Where have all the Christians gone?"

Stoke that xenophobia, Fox News.

I've had Catholic friends and I've had friends who like Fox News. Now I'm really curious to figure out how much overlap there is.

Being raised Methodist, I don't have the amount of guilt and intolerance that my Catholic friends all seem to share. Nowadays, I'm Spagnostic, and I can't stand Fox News....so this is entertaining.

[Slack3r78]

I've had Catholic friends and I've had friends who like Fox News. Now I'm really curious to figure out how much overlap there is.

Being raised Methodist, I don't have the amount of guilt and intolerance that my Catholic friends all seem to share. Nowadays, I'm Spagnostic, and I can't stand Fox News....so this is entertaining.

lol, you think Catholics are intolerant. That's so cute.

Spend some time with southern evangelicals and get back to me.

[ShivaX]

lol, you think Catholics are intolerant. That's so cute.

Spend some time with southern evangelicals and get back to me.

Yeah Catholics always tended to be the bottom of the totem pole in Christianity I thought. Something to do with everyone else defining themselves as not being Catholic. Some brewhaha about some Luther guy and a door I think.

[Slack3r78]

Yeah Catholics always tended to be the bottom of the totem pole in Christianity I thought. Something to do with everyone else defining themselves as not being Catholic. Some brewhaha about some Luther guy and a door I think.

There are a lot of evangelicals who will vehemently claim that Catholics are not Christians.

[Narradisall]

I was looking at this research today.

To be fair - BBC's title was 'One in four is muslim, study says' (although I think it should be One inf Four ARE Muslim, Study says)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8296200.stm

Still I found the little map interesting. Indonesia has more Muslims than Pakistan.

[Blue]

Eh, just the fact that so many people believe in fairy tale myths is enough to scare me. Doesn't matter which fairy tale, they're all centered around bigotry and a sense of entitlement and righteousness.

I always find it funny when athiests (which I'm assuming you are, so if I'm wrong, I apologize) have as much evidence for their beliefs as I have for mine yet they always come across as though they're somehow intellectually superior. Never understood that.

Anyhow, on topic wasn't this somewhat already assumed? I remember reading a while back that by 2020 or so Islam would be the dominant religion in the world. Maybe I'm wrong there.

[Generation ABXY]

(although I think it should be One inf Four ARE Muslim, Study says)

Actually, I think they're correct; I mean, they're talking about the one, not the whole or just the other three. But, I digress...

[ShivaX]

I always find it funny when athiests (which I'm assuming you are, so if I'm wrong, I apologize) have as much evidence for their beliefs as I have for mine yet they always come across as though they're somehow intellectually superior. Never understood that.

A lot of that comes from Creationists, I think. Its not hard to think you're intellectually superior to people who are proud to be flagrantly ignorant.

[johnperkins21]

I always find it funny when athiests (which I'm assuming you are, so if I'm wrong, I apologize) have as much evidence for their beliefs as I have for mine yet they always come across as though they're somehow intellectually superior. Never understood that.

Atheists don't have beliefs as a group that aren't supported by facts or evidence. I don't need evidence to not believe in god, but I would need evidence to believe in god. And there's just as much evidence for Santa Claus as there is for god, but if I went around claiming Santa was real, people would rightly regard me as intellectually inferior.

[Zero]

There are a lot of evangelicals who will vehemently claim that Catholics are not Christians.

Amongst most of the Hispanic Catholics I've met being called a Christian is incredibly insulting. We don't mix with that rabble. Also, being in Arkansas I've run into a few people that have told me all Catholics are going to hell.

[Narradisall]

Actually, I think they're correct; I mean, they're talking about the one, not the whole or just the other three. But, I digress...

Don't correct my correction! :p

[Blue]

A lot of that comes from Creationists, I think. Its not hard to think you're intellectually superior to people who are proud to be flagrantly ignorant.

While I agree that people who scoff at evolution are difficult (or at the very least can be) to deal with and are often extremely bull-headed, I still don't get the knee-jerk need to call someone ignorant. From where I generally stem, evolution is still creationism as, for me, something had to be created in order to evolve in the first place. That's just me though and what makes sense to me. I've always felt creationism and evolution can easily co-exist but many religious folks won't take that next step. Ah well.

Atheists don't have beliefs as a group that aren't supported by facts or evidence. I don't need evidence to not believe in god, but I would need evidence to believe in god. And there's just as much evidence for Santa Claus as there is for god, but if I went around claiming Santa was real, people would rightly regard me as intellectually inferior.

But again, simply because you assume there is no God doesn't make you automatically more intelligent than someone who assumes that there is. You can't play the intellectually superior card based on a hunch.

[Generation ABXY]

Atheists don't have beliefs as a group that aren't supported by facts or evidence. I don't need evidence to not believe in god, but I would need evidence to believe in god. And there's just as much evidence for Santa Claus as there is for god, but if I went around claiming Santa was real, people would rightly regard me as intellectually inferior.

On the other hand, if gifts kept showing up under your tree year after year, you might start to suspect that someone was behind it. I wouldn't think you intellectually inferior for that.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

But again, simply because you assume there is no God doesn't make you automatically more intelligent than someone who assumes that there is. You can't play the intellectually superior card based on a hunch.

Did he assume anything? I think he just said that the believes things that have proof and evidence behind them.

[Kelegacy]

Both believers and non-believers are wrong. The one correct choice is agnosticism. :)

[ClannerDelta]

Both believers and non-believers are wrong. The one correct choice is agnosticism. :)

Fuck that, I worship Odin. Call me when Ragnarok hits... in 2012.

[Vigil80]

Ok, this is going bad in a hurry. Let's all accept that nobody is getting converted in a friggin' CoG thread to any state of (dis)belief. Also, lots of muslims around the world, some sensational style journalism, what a surprise, *insert chic Fox hate*.

Time to go play video games or something.

[Ink Asylum]

We are in P&R. Discussions of Religion fall under this forum's jurisdiction.

[Generation ABXY]

We are in P&R. Discussions of Religion fall under this forum's jurisdiction.

Also, pie. Or whatever that "p" stands for.

[johnperkins21]

Both believers and non-believers are wrong. The one correct choice is agnosticism. :)

Agnosticism isn't a choice. It's the default state for all human beings. Every single one of us is agnostic as no person alive can know if a god exists or not. The only question is whether or not you believe in one. And since nobody knows, it's impossible to make a judgment call on which belief is wrong. :p

[Vigil80]

We are in P&R. Discussions of Religion fall under this forum's jurisdiction.
Sure, discussion. I get what the letters stand for. Soon as I see somebody manage to discuss religion - or politics around here, for that matter - without bashing, supremacy, and throwing around words like ignorant, I'll buy that.

More to the topic, most news from most outlets is classed up fearmongering. In a time when news media has to claw and fight for every viewer, fear equals revenue. Whether it's this headline, "Will war in Afghanistan end in tears?" over at MSNBC, or "Will you stop shaking hands out of fear of H1N1?" at CNN. Good news and optimistic slants don't grab eyeballs.

In other words, scary headlines are - you guessed it - old news.

[johnperkins21]

Sure, discussion. I get what the letters stand for. Soon as I see somebody manage to discuss religion - or politics around here, for that matter - without bashing, supremacy, and throwing around words like ignorant, I'll buy that.

More to the topic, most news from most outlets is classed up fearmongering. In a time when news media has to claw and fight for every viewer, fear equals revenue. Whether it's this headline, "Will war in Afghanistan end in tears?" over at MSNBC, or "Will you stop shaking hands out of fear of H1N1?" at CNN. Good news and optimistic slants don't grab eyeballs.

In other words, scary headlines are - you guessed it - old news.

I think the problem is that the simple fact that people have slightly different religious views can be used as a scary headline. It should not in any way be considered frightening that 1 in 4 people are Muslim. And yet, here they are.

The ones I hate the most are news programs that say something like "is the milk at your store killing you? Find out at 6." Dude, if my milk is killing me, tell me now motherfuckers.

[Blue]

Fuck that, I worship Odin. Call me when Ragnarok hits... in 2012.

Odin seems okay by me. He has spheres, after all, and I can get behind those.

I think the problem is that the simple fact that people have slightly different religious views can be used as a scary headline. It should not in any way be considered frightening that 1 in 4 people are Muslim. And yet, here they are.

The ones I hate the most are news programs that say something like "is the milk at your store killing you? Find out at 6." Dude, if my milk is killing me, tell me now motherfuckers.

At this you and I agree. The title seems like it could be easily used for scaremongering, especially for religious folks who feel easily threatened (and, as I know many of these people, that could definitely be the case). I mean, I understand the need to get someone's attention, but don't make religion into a negative to do it.

If it helps, as a Christian myself, I'm just as annoyed and frustrated with many other Christians I meet as I assume many of you are. The reaction I'm sure I'd hear from my family due to this headline solidifies that.

[Blue]

Did he assume anything? I think he just said that the believes things that have proof and evidence behind them.

Possibly, but I still think the crux of what I was saying stands. I don't think too anyone should or can belittle anyone else or their beliefs without their own evidence to prove otherwise.

But I don't want to get terribly off-topic so I'll leave it. Just a personal pet-peeve is all and these types of situations come off as double-standards and it's like nails on a chalkboard to me. I should have left it be.

[Kelegacy]

Agnosticism isn't a choice. It's the default state for all human beings. Every single one of us is agnostic as no person alive can know if a god exists or not. The only question is whether or not you believe in one. And since nobody knows, it's impossible to make a judgment call on which belief is wrong. :p

Oh I don't know--it's still a philosophical path I think, though you are right that no one can really know what is true. You can choose to believe, and choose not to. I choose to abstain from both, at least. It's like I'm Sweden or something. :)

I think religion is often confused with spirituality. Religion is man-made and is really nothing more than an organized, recognized, cult. Spirituality, on the other hand...well, you don't need religion to be spiritual. Dogma is man made crap.

Man, I hate these religious discussions. They're all pointless, even if someone has a really valid point. People believe in a God they've never seen or heard or touched, so you can't really expect them to give it all up if someone suddenly has a valid point.

I think the godless side has more "proof", however. I'm a father, but if my child attempted to jump off a cliff or do something dangerous I'd try to stop him and protect him. Meanwhile, our "Father" in heaven lets atrocious shit happen every day. That's not really fatherly, is it? The Holocaust could have been stopped in a second by the big guy, but it wasn't. The world suffers every day, yet people still expect you to believe.

[Blue]

I think the godless side has more "proof", however. I'm a father, but if my child attempted to jump off a cliff or do something dangerous I'd try to stop him and protect him. Meanwhile, our "Father" in heaven lets atrocious shit happen every day. That's not really fatherly, is it? The Holocaust could have been stopped in a second by the big guy, but it wasn't. The world suffers every day, yet people still expect you to believe.

Not to perpetuate the point, but that still doesn't disprove nor prove anything. I think people make the mistake of thinking omnibenevolence, omniscience, or even omnipotence supersedes free will. And to your earlier statement, even if a religious person came in making their own valid point, I'm pretty sure a non-religious person would also ignore it just as quickly.

[johnperkins21]

At this you and I agree. The title seems like it could be easily used for scaremongering, especially for religious folks who feel easily threatened (and, as I know many of these people, that could definitely be the case). I mean, I understand the need to get someone's attention, but don't make religion into a negative to do it.

If it helps, as a Christian myself, I'm just as annoyed and frustrated with many other Christians I meet as I assume many of you are. The reaction I'm sure I'd hear from my family due to this headline solidifies that.

I truly believe the vast majority of Christians feel the same way you do. There is however, either a growing population of radical, fundamentalist Christians, or at the very least, an increase in how vocal they are. And Fox News seems to be the ringleader for that circus.

Possibly, but I still think the crux of what I was saying stands. I don't think too anyone should or can belittle anyone else or their beliefs without their own evidence to prove otherwise.

I can see your point, but the problem is your belief is the one that requires evidence, not mine. You say that a god exists, it's your burden to provide evidence. If I told you the moon was made of cheese, and you disagreed, it would be my burden to provide the evidence, not yours.

[Blue]

I truly believe the vast majority of Christians feel the same way you do. There is however, either a growing population of radical, fundamentalist Christians, or at the very least, an increase in how vocal they are. And Fox News seems to be the ringleader for that circus.

I can see your point, but the problem is your belief is the one that requires evidence, not mine. You say that a god exists, it's your burden to provide evidence. If I told you the moon was made of cheese, and you disagreed, it would be my burden to provide the evidence, not yours.

Oh definitely. It's the whole vocal minority thing and they drive me just as nuts and they probably do you. And Fox News makes me want to claw out my eyes (and ears).

I don't necessarily disagree that burden of proof is on those making the claim of a higher being but I would definitely argue that the minute someone steps in and begins belittling the beliefs of someone else, they too had best be able to back up their side of things. Maybe that's too much to ask in some situations but I do (personally) find it frustrating when someone can tell me I'm certainly in the wrong and to "prove it" when I'm not even trying to convert them to anything, simply stating my point of view, and then when I say I believe them to be just as wrong and tell them to "prove it" they say nope, don't have to. Seems a bit skewed.

[Vigil80]

Never mind the fact that as I see it, there is no "burden of proof" on anyone, in this particular discussion especially. None of the views or belief systems require proving, since nobody here is trying to convert anybody that I can tell. The subject didn't even come up until someone started up with "your beliefs are dumb lol."

[Slack3r78]

Sure, discussion. I get what the letters stand for. Soon as I see somebody manage to discuss religion - or politics around here, for that matter - without bashing, supremacy, and throwing around words like ignorant, I'll buy that.
Door is that way, feel free to use it if you're not capable of having this sort of discussion without having your feelings hurt.


Both believers and non-believers are wrong. The one correct choice is agnosticism. :)
That's pretty much my feeling on it from a science perspective. Without a preponderance of evidence, the assumption is that a given hypothesis isn't true. It's also logically impossible to prove a negative.

You can say that the lack of evidence strongly suggests that a hypothesis is false, but you can't do so with the ironclad certainty of atheism. Science is largely built on top of doubt.

[Vigil80]

The problem with taking a scientific angle - and by extension, the problem with having the argument in the first place - is that so much of religion defies science. There doesn't seem to be an abundance of people trying to scientifically prove their beliefs. Why should they, if they already believe them? So when the non-believer says "science, science science!" of course the believer just shrugs his shoulders at best. Who needs science if he has faith? It is sort of the definition.

If science makes the non-believer feel better, then that's worth something I guess. But it will never be a big enough stick with which to beat religious followers over the head. Organized religion is older than science.

Door is that way, feel free to use it if you're not capable of having this sort of discussion without having your feelings hurt.
Are folks not capable of having this sort of discussion without bashing? Again, I'm not saying that discussion is the problem. Is the lack thereof, except by the flimsiest of definitions. And before you go accusing me of being unable to stand the heat or something, bear in mind that my statement was basically a paraphrasing of the few rules governing this board.

[Blue]

Stemming a little from what Prize said (and Slack, to an extent), I would highly recommend the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins. Really interesting read though I'll admit that some of it was quite a bit above my head. Delves into how science and religion (or, belief, more) can and should coexist. Some of it was a bit religion heavy for my taste - and this coming from someone who is a believer already - that I felt undermined a bit of what he was trying to accomplish, but I definitely think there was some interesting food-for-thought in there.

[BlackPete]

Both believers and non-believers are wrong. The one correct choice is agnosticism. naturalistic pantheism. :)

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

[Slack3r78]

Again, I'm not saying that discussion is the problem. Is the lack thereof, except by the flimsiest of definitions. And before you go accusing me of being unable to stand the heat or something, bear in mind that my statement was basically a paraphrasing of the few rules governing this board.

You started complaining about the thread 'going bad' when it'd barely gotten started. Nobody here has made personal attacks on anybody else or anything that's even borderline against the rules here. If you're that bloody sensitive, I can't imagine how you'd respond to a less civil community.

The problem with taking a scientific angle - and by extension, the problem with having the argument in the first place - is that so much of religion defies science. There doesn't seem to be an abundance of people trying to scientifically prove their beliefs. Why should they, if they already believe them? So when the non-believer says "science, science science!" of course the believer just shrugs his shoulders at best. Who needs science if he has faith? It is sort of the definition.
Not true at all. I've had this type of discussion, at length, in real life, at bars with people that are devout believers on a semi-regular basis and it's a completely worthwhile line of discussion. I disagree with them and neither of us expect to change the other's mind, but if you're being intellectually honest with yourself, then you should be seeking out dissenting opinion. The phrase I've used on more than one occasion during these discussions is that 'nothing is learned in an echo chamber.'

[Slack3r78]

Delves into how science and religion (or, belief, more) can and should coexist.
The idea that religion can't stand to intellectual scrutiny is largely formed from evangelicals who refuse to allow it to be subjected to anything other than unquestioning belief.

Again, using the Catholic church as an example, you'll find there's a long, rich history of stringent intellectualism within the church. Catholic academics have spent centuries debating the nature and merits of faith amongst themselves, including questioning whether faith should exist at all.

[Blue]

The idea that religion can't stand to intellectual scrutiny is largely formed from evangelicals who refuse to allow it to be subjected to anything other than unquestioning belief.

Again, using the Catholic church as an example, you'll find there's a long, rich history of stringent intellectualism within the church. Catholic academics have spent centuries debating the nature and merits of faith amongst themselves, including questioning whether faith should exist at all.

Oh I agree completely and it's a great point of frustration as someone who is, for lack of a better phrase I guess, on the inside though I'm very far from evangelical despite growing up around it. I actually bought the book and gave it to my mom. I'm still waiting on her to "get around to reading it". Can't win them all, I guess.

[Vigil80]

You started complaining about the thread 'going bad' when it'd barely gotten started. Nobody here has made personal attacks on anybody else or anything that's even borderline against the rules here. If you're that bloody sensitive, I can't imagine how you'd respond to a less civil community.
I believe that someone had, as a matter of fact, or at least come close. But I'm not going to do blatant fingerpointing while it looks like the content is on an upswing. Less civil "communities" are basically beneath my membership. Call me whatever makes you happy.
Not true at all. I've had this type of discussion, at length, in real life, at bars with people that are devout believers on a semi-regular basis and it's a completely worthwhile line of discussion. I disagree with them and neither of us expect to change the other's mind, but if you're being intellectually honest with yourself, then you should be seeking out dissenting opinion. The phrase I've used on more than one occasion during these discussions is that 'nothing is learned in an echo chamber.'
Bolding mine. From my perspective, you're giving me back my same point. I'm not saying discussion is wrong, or that it can't or shouldn't be had. Just that in the vast majority of cases, there's not much to be gained unless you're just looking for an argument for it's own sake.
Delves into how science and religion (or, belief, more) can and should coexist.
More religious leaders should probably pursue avenues like this. The people that would believe largely already do, but if they want to develop their religion further, such might be the best path.

[Slack3r78]

Bolding mine. From my perspective, you're giving me back my same point. For the third time, I'm not saying the discussion is wrong, or that it can't or shouldn't be had. Just that in the vast majority of cases, there's not much to be gained unless you're just looking for an argument for it's own sake.
Not changing someone's mind doesn't mean the discussion was a waste of time. Discussing things with people you agree with gets boring very quickly. It also breeds intellectual laziness. The whole point is that I don't agree with the other person, and it's not because I'm looking for a fight.

[Vigil80]

We're rearranging the words around with each response, but I think we've essentially reached agreement. The only difference I see is the half-full/half-empty kind. Semantics.

[Shieldmaiden]

My experience with discussing religion, especially when science is involved, is that the hardcore atheists want everything done on their terms and will immediately discount anything and anyone that isn't. There's an almost Scully-like ability to find a "scientific" explanation for everything, no matter how implausible it may be. We don't use the scientific method to discuss music or art, do we?

I've still yet to see anyone provide any explanation for incidents of faith healing that I have personally witnessed. Divine intervention? No idea. Worthy of thought and investigation? Definitely.

[Slack3r78]

My experience with discussing religion, especially when science is involved, is that the hardcore atheists want everything done on their terms and will immediately discount anything and anyone that isn't. There's an almost Scully-like ability to find a "scientific" explanation for everything, no matter how implausible it may be. We don't use the scientific method to discuss music or art, do we?
Well, the thing is, if you're approaching things from the point of view of science, not knowing the explanation for something just means you don't know. It doesn't mean you default to "God did it." That's using a lack of evidence to support a conclusion lacking evidence.

[MachEnergy]

I've still yet to see anyone provide any explanation for incidents of faith healing that I have personally witnessed. Divine intervention? No idea. Worthy of thought and investigation? Definitely.

This is something I've recently taken interest in. Studies have shown that praying for someone to get better actually has a measured impact. Not being religious, I first took that information as yet another attempt to convince me that God exists. However, after giving it some thought, I can relate it to other scientific discoveries. I see it as yet another way of showing that all our atomic structures are connected in some way. Much like how atoms light years apart can vibrate in a form of instantaneous communication. The belief is that these atoms were formed together and that even now that they are on opposite ends of the universe, they can still interact without any sort of delay. What people think of as faith healing could simply be sending positive energy. Good karma. Whatever you want to call it, it's pretty amazing in every sense.

[johnperkins21]

I've still yet to see anyone provide any explanation for incidents of faith healing that I have personally witnessed. Divine intervention? No idea. Worthy of thought and investigation? Definitely.

Placebo effect. It's an incredibly powerful thing. And as far as I know there are zero confirmed cases of faith healing actually working. Almost all research leads to evidence of fraud, misinformation, or temporary relief due to the euphoric atmosphere generated and the placebo effect. If you've got some concrete evidence of a faith healer helping an amputee grow a limb back, I'd concede the fact that there is a god. Heck, any evidence that faith healing has ever worked to fully cure a person that can't be explained by any other scientific means, and I'll convert to Christianity right now.

Edit: Oh, and there's a million dollar prize waiting at the Randi Foundation (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) for any proof as well.

This is something I've recently taken interest in. Studies have shown that praying for someone to get better actually has a measured impact. Not being religious, I first took that information as yet another attempt to convince me that God exists. However, after giving it some thought, I can relate it to other scientific discoveries. I see it as yet another way of showing that all our atomic structures are connected in some way. Much like how atoms light years apart can vibrate in a form of instantaneous communication. The belief is that these atoms were formed together and that even now that they are on opposite ends of the universe, they can still interact without any sort of delay. What people think of as faith healing could simply be sending positive energy. Good karma. Whatever you want to call it, it's pretty amazing in every sense.

Apparently you've seen different studies than I have. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever to prayer and healing beyond the placebo effect. Here's an article that talks about issues with some of the studies: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1849/have-studies-proven-that-prayer-can-help-heal-the-sick

My favorite part:
Of course, there is a question whether a true test of prayer is even possible. As Eric Stockton pointed out in a letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer (July/August 2000), if prayer works because of God's intervention, and God is the omniscient deity of Christianity (or most any major religion), then He knows He is being tested. As such, He could accept or reject whatever prayer is offered, and either choose to give or not give evidence that it works. It would be impossible to properly blind such an experiment if it's the deity we're talking about. If it is supposed to be the prayer itself that heals, rather than God intervening, then we don't have that issue, but we instead have to wonder how it might be that such prayer might work--if we ever get a decent study that shows it does, that is.

[txshurricane]

There are a lot of evangelicals who will vehemently claim that Catholics are not Christians.
Digging way back, but this ^ is not necessarily true, at least not in the context of:
Spend some time with southern evangelicals and get back to me.
I'm not an evangelical, but I am a part of a Pentecostal organization. I've never known anyone to say that a Catholic is not a Christian by definition; that's just ignorant. However, most Pentecostals and similar groups do believe Catholicism to be very much an incorrect path to salvation; that's belief.

[Kelegacy]

txshurricane, can you speak in tongues?

We have some holy rollers here in our office, but they frighten me a bit (and I've watched Jesus Camp, so it even made the unease worse). Very nice people, though.

[txshurricane]

txshurricane, can you speak in tongues?

We have some holy rollers here in our office, but they frighten me a bit (and I've watched Jesus Camp, so it even made the unease worse). Very nice people, though.
I had a long post prepared, but the short of it is: yes. I have, and I do.

[Voodoo]

txshurricane, can you speak in tongues?

We have some holy rollers here in our office, but they frighten me a bit (and I've watched Jesus Camp, so it even made the unease worse). Very nice people, though.

I routinely hang out with people of all tacks of faith, from the most-good-two-shoed Abrahamics all the way to the most vile of Satanists. Personally, I have only felt unease during animal sacrifice rituals. Beyond that, it's been all good and a vast learning process of the human psyche.

[Slack3r78]

I've never known anyone to say that a Catholic is not a Christian by definition; that's just ignorant.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

EDIT:

And just because linking to Jack Chick is always fun:

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/

There's a whole section of tracts on Catholicism.

[Kelegacy]

I routinely hang out with people of all tacks of faith, from the most-good-two-shoed Abrahamics all the way to the most vile of Satanists. Personally, I have only felt unease during animal sacrifice rituals. Beyond that, it's been all good and a vast learning process of the human psyche.

I think it's the theatrics of religions that get to me. Catholicism has its fair share of show and weirds me out as well. All of it has a cultish edge to it that I can't quite shake. Though these organizations would go out of their way to demonize cults...the irony. :)

My church was a Baptist one, in the country, and we didn't do anything weird. It was actually quite boring. Other than gang-raping virgins on their wedding nights, that is.

Animal sacrifice would be the worst. I couldn't handle that. Or any rituals where people are hurt. Though after watching Jesus Camp, I think sometimes there is damage going on that isn't physical.

[johnperkins21]

txshurricane, can you speak in tongues?

We have some holy rollers here in our office, but they frighten me a bit (and I've watched Jesus Camp, so it even made the unease worse). Very nice people, though.

I've never been more frightened in my life than when I was around 7 years old and my maternal grandmother, who is a Pentecostal pastor (my dad's mom was also a pastor, but I think she was Presbyterian), took me and my cousin up to the front of her church, placed her hands on our heads, and started speaking in tongues. It was traumatizing. We were crying pretty much the entire day.

[txshurricane]

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

EDIT:

And just because linking to Jack Chick is always fun:

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/

There's a whole section of tracts on Catholicism.

I stand corrected.

[Slack3r78]

I think it's the theatrics of religions that get to me. Catholicism has its fair share of show and weirds me out as well. All of it has a cultish edge to it that I can't quite shake. Though these organizations would go out of their way to demonize cults...the irony. :)
The deep seated ritualism is where a lot of my fascination with Catholicism stems from, actually.

[johnperkins21]

I routinely hang out with people of all tacks of faith, from the most-good-two-shoed Abrahamics all the way to the most vile of Satanists. Personally, I have only felt unease during animal sacrifice rituals. Beyond that, it's been all good and a vast learning process of the human psyche.

I have a copy of the Satanic Bible at home, and I don't remember anything being in there about animal sacrifice, or anything even remotely vile. It's really quite tame. I'm wondering where the animal sacrifice comes from.

[Voodoo]

I have a copy of the Satanic Bible at home, and I don't remember anything being in there about animal sacrifice, or anything even remotely vile. It's really quite tame. I'm wondering where the animal sacrifice comes from.

Depends on which sect the Satanist is part of. Anton's sect is more about egocentricity and living for one's self. I've only seen it once at a Satanist ceremony in South Florida. I have seen far more during my time down there when I was involved with Vodou practices - mostly chickens - but it is still uneasy and never something I got used to.

[johnperkins21]

Depends on which sect the Satanist is part of. Anton's sect is more about egocentricity and living for one's self. I've only seen it once at a Satanist ceremony in South Florida. I have seen far more during my time down there when I was involved with Vodou practices - mostly chickens - but it is still uneasy and never something I got used to.

Ah, ok. I thought I might have been misremembering the book. Been a long time since I've opened it.

I find it difficult to fathom anyone believing in, or even worshiping a god who requires live sacrifices of any kind. I know for a fact that my dad exists, and as a kid I worshiped him, even when he was drunk and beating up on my mom, but if he ever asked me to kill a dog for him, I'm pretty sure that's the last time we'd ever speak.

[Voodoo]

Ah, ok. I thought I might have been misremembering the book. Been a long time since I've opened it.

I find it difficult to fathom anyone believing in, or even worshiping a god who requires live sacrifices of any kind. I know for a fact that my dad exists, and as a kid I worshiped him, even when he was drunk and beating up on my mom, but if he ever asked me to kill a dog for him, I'm pretty sure that's the last time we'd ever speak.

Different parts of the world believe in entirely different ways. This is an absolute. For instance, if you decided to eat a hamburger in India then your ass better be very light on your feet. :) Animal sacrifice has been a long in the tooth uncle of many religions. For example, Judaism and Christianity have animal sacrifice in their past. Also, remember, there are many religions in the world which do not worship a God or Gods but instead look towards energies & spirits. While many feel that there is no justification for animal sacrifice, it is very difficult to convince someone whom is many generational deep into a particular belief system.

Oh... this even gets more complicated when you leave Earth. To even begin to think of the theologies that Alien races will have makes my head start to spin.

[National Kato]

Oh... this even gets more complicated when you leave Earth. To even begin to think of the theologies that Alien races will have makes my head start to spin.

I, for one, welcome our flying spaghetti overlords. Mmmm...spaghetti.

[Zero]

Though after watching Jesus Camp, I think sometimes there is damage going on that isn't physical.

I think of all the weird religious rituals I've ever seen, the speaking in tongues part of that movie was the weirdest. It was very discerning.

[Vigil80]

Intellectual discussion, study of the human condition, yee haw and all that. But somebody needs to say it.

Holy shit fellas.

For a second I felt like I had stepped into an episode of Supernatural. :p

Edit: Now that would make an interesting headline for the news. "1 in X people worship Satan."

[txshurricane]

I think of all the weird religious rituals I've ever seen, the speaking in tongues part of that movie was the weirdest. It was very discerning.
I think the word you're looking for is "disconcerting".

Although by mistake, you have very accurately described the spirituality of speaking in tongues as "discerning". Nice!

[Zero]

I think the word you're looking for is "disconcerting".

Although by mistake, you have very accurately described the spirituality of speaking in tongues as "discerning". Nice!

No, I used the right word.

[Shieldmaiden]

Placebo effect. It's an incredibly powerful thing. And as far as I know there are zero confirmed cases of faith healing actually working. Almost all research leads to evidence of fraud, misinformation, or temporary relief due to the euphoric atmosphere generated and the placebo effect. If you've got some concrete evidence of a faith healer helping an amputee grow a limb back, I'd concede the fact that there is a god. Heck, any evidence that faith healing has ever worked to fully cure a person that can't be explained by any other scientific means, and I'll convert to Christianity right now.

Can I offer any kind of proof? Nope. Can I tell you about a couple of things that I witnessed and let you make of it what you will? Yes, yes I can.

I've been to a few church services that involved faith healing and I've been witness to two incidents that suggest that something happened. For the record, I don't believe that this is necessarily evidence of faith healing. I just believe that something happened that warrants further investigation.

The first one was the more dramatic, but I can't be sure it was genuine. One of the members of the congregation supposedly had terminal cancer, went to a faith healing session and a week later was absolutely fine. I have no particular reason to believe that it was all made up, but I don't have any proof that it wasn't.

The second incident wasn't as extreme, but I actually knew the guy involved beforehand. He'd worn glasses his entire life to correct fairly severe short-sightedness. He went to church for the first time, went up for faith healing and immediately afterwards had to stop wearing his glasses because he couldn't see with them on. I saw him a few months later and he'd been to the opticians who told him there was nothing wrong with his eyesight.

[Dorkandproudofit]

Does ANYONE here even remember what the original topic was? Let's get back on it. Please. If you want to argue about religion, make a different thread.

[Shieldmaiden]

Does ANYONE here even remember what the original topic was? Let's get back on it. Please. If you want to argue about religion, make a different thread.

Nobody is arguing about religion. There are several people discussing religion in a thread that is about religion. In fact, this is probably the most calm and civil religious discussion I've seen in a long time.

[Dorkandproudofit]

Nobody is arguing about religion. There are several people discussing religion in a thread that is about religion. In fact, this is probably the most calm and civil religious discussion I've seen in a long time.

I was under the impression that the thread was about Fox overhyping a "story" to excite/scare their base. I thought Religion was just an aside.

[Blue]

I was under the impression that the thread was about Fox overhyping a "story" to excite/scare their base. I thought Religion was just an aside.

A story that was hyped due to religion, which is what this thread is/was about. The entire crux of the article and hype itself stemmed from religion. So the discussions taking place are valid.

[Slack3r78]

Does ANYONE here even remember what the original topic was? Let's get back on it. Please. If you want to argue about religion, make a different thread.

Discussion works by people pursuing interesting topics. It's a little annoying to have somebody that hasn't been participating in the thread jump in and bitch about the conversation not going in the direction they want.

[ShivaX]

So... Dork is pissed we're not ragging on Fox News more or what?

I'm not getting where hes coming from.

[Dorkandproudofit]

So... Dork is pissed we're not ragging on Fox News more or what?

I'm not getting where hes coming from.

I was just curious about how we got so hooked on religion when I thought the topic was about Fox, that's all. It's not like I was trolling. I just got confused... which, these days, is pretty much my default mode.

[Kagger]

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

I know you were not trying to state you believe that, but I must say:

Many of those things are not actually what Catholics believe at all, or are only partially correct. For instance, the first 3 are blatantly wrong, and the thing about the Pope is missing the part about it only relating to Church Doctrine. Priests are never ever classified as infallible, and they do sin. The rest of the list is just as erroneous.

[Ink Asylum]

I have no problem with personal religion. I simply don't trust organized religion, particularly the leaders of organized religion. The importance people place in their faith is too easy to exploit for the wrong purposes.

[Generation ABXY]

I agree; a reliance on anyone other than yourself is far too easy to exploit.

[boratika]

Fuck that, I worship Odin. Call me when Ragnarok hits... in 2012.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f66/boratika/arockalypse.jpg