>> ^BoneRemake:

NEITHER HAVE YOU TASTED MY JESUS !

>> ^SDGundamX:
I don't think your study would be very convincing to most people because no religions I know of describe prayer as a "wish machine." Most religious people would say that just because someone prays for something doesn't mean it will automatically or always be answered. Some would go so far as to say if the prayer isn't answered then clearly the answer is "no." This makes scientific investigation in the form your describing nigh impossible. At science's core is the idea that there are rules to how the phenomenom being studied work and that through observation we can observe these rules. While the effects of arbitrary decisions (i.e. someone who got prayed for gets better) can be observed, it is probably impossible to figure out how those decisions were made through observation only and without asking the decider directly.


Then why does he suggest that "if God DOES exist the benefits of prayer would be even greater?" It sounds to me like they have a fairly specific hypothesis about what the existence of God would imply about the physical world. Besides, I think Raverman's little caveat at the end was hinting that he was expecting this sort of response. The frustration is that somehow they get to use science to support their views, but never can it undermine them.

>> ^raverman:

So... the benefit is either self derived - placebo effect. Or delivered by god.
Hypothesis: If delivered by god, then, praying to an imaginary friend is 'silly'.
If you're going to use research to back up your religion. Lets test it further.
Four groups with an illness receive no treatment aside from ardent daily prayer.
- one group prays to God
- one group prays to Buddha (to prove if it's any god or just your god)
- one group prays to Chuck Norris (to prove if it's placebo or God)
- one group does not pray at all.
If all four groups are the same then the research is bull shit.
If there is no significant deviation between the 3 groups praying, then you can run tell that!
Is there really no one willing to fund a post graduate student to do a study to put this shit to bed once and for all?
Research Limitation: up front you agree not to say "God is Mysterious" if you don't like the results.


Unfortunately, one of these studies will not occur in the modern world. You see, us scientists(read: doctors) have these rules called "ethics" which do not allow us to withhold an effective treatment in the name of a research study.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

So... the benefit is either self derived - placebo effect. Or delivered by god.
Hypothesis: If delivered by god, then, praying to an imaginary friend is 'silly'.

If you're going to use research to back up your religion. Lets test it further.

Four groups with an illness receive no treatment aside from ardent daily prayer.
- one group prays to God
- one group prays to Buddha (to prove if it's any god or just your god)
- one group prays to Chuck Norris (to prove if it's placebo or God)
- one group does not pray at all.

If all four groups are the same then the research is bull shit.
If there is no significant deviation between the 3 groups praying, then you can run tell that!

Is there really no one willing to fund a post graduate student to do a study to put this shit to bed once and for all?

Research Limitation: up front you agree not to say "God is Mysterious" if you don't like the results.

Your video, Father Morris: It's Not Healthy to Have an Imaginary Friend, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^RedSky:

I like how religious people can never decide if God intervenes or not.


Well, we all know he doesn't! That would negate free will!

You just need to read the Great Bible he gave us to make our decisions. I'm going to go take my lithium and read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". Toodaloo!

/Yes, it's actually "tout a l'heure", us silly Americans.

oooo! Thank you!>> ^SDGundamX:

Article about the study on LiveScience. (@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://fusionaut.videosift.com" title="member since September 9th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#00ffbf">Fusionaut: The article partially answers your question.) Definitely worth a read as it tends to present a balanced view. I would be interested in reading the original paper to see the methodology used in more detail.

My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend. Now lets fight over it.

Most of us give up imaginary friends when we're children. Yes it's the sign of an unstable mind that you still talk to your imaginary friend as an adult. Do you EXPECT people to treat that as normal?

>> ^Yogi:

Takei says you should never tell someone to kill themselves. I think it depends on the reason though. If you're telling them to go kill themselves because they're black, or gay, or plushy, then yeah that's wrong you shouldn't do that. But when they say some really fucking stupid shit like McCance did...then no Fuck that, he should die. I would love LOVE to meet him and constantly tell him that he should kill himself. Stupid assholes don't deserve to live...period.


Like Shep said, it really goes to show that he's a better man to not stoop to his level. I remember having a heated discussion with a Jesus freak about abortion and he threw in some statement about how his religion taught him to that everyone deserves to live "even you." I told him to think about his statement: deep down he wanted me to DIE because of my beliefs and it was only his magical imaginary friend in the sky who was blackmailing him into obedience by promising hellfire if he didn't that made him get in line. His base instinct was that I should DIE for disagreeing with him. I told him that clearly he was a violent and unhappy person only governed by threats of violence from white-bearded old men living in the clouds... didn't go over so well

@Januari @ForgedReality

Humans (and probably some animals in a more simplistic way) can perceive "minds". You can imagine what someone or something will think even when it's not in the room with you. Children often have imaginary friends, etc. This helps massively in planning and reasoning. Humans perceive minds as having will, intention, etc separate from the requirement of a physical body. It's not much of a stretch from this to some sort of god.

Assuming you subscribe to the fact that evolution shaped the way our brains work, why are you surprised at the concept that evolution created a predisposition towards belief in some sort of supernatural mind that has will and intent?

I'm convinced that my upbringing/education gave me the critical thinking skills I needed to debunk religious thought in my own mind. Sure, I'm probably less predisposed to it than others for some reason, because I can't ever remember truly believing in all the stuff they tried to teach me in friggin' Sunday School, but really, IMO it seems likely that evolution created a predisposition to faith-based reasoning in most humans.

I agree with most of the logic in the video, except possibly the "default position" for the human mind. That's an assumption, really.

Check this article out:
http://www.mindpowernews.com/BrainGod.htm

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think we're partially in agreement. I would interpret "atheist government" to mean a government which enforces atheism. This is what your 4 examples are. Atheism isn't the problem with those governments/societies, enforcement is.
But then you seem to speak of government indifference as a bad thing. Government indifference is the pinnacle of government religious involvement.
It's also a little contradictory to claim that atheist societies are weak and give 4 examples where robust religious societies were taken over by the godless. Again, oppressive societies are weak because they breed enemies left and right, and because their populace, in time, will jump at the chance to have the government overthrown.
>> ^quantumushroom:
You are correct that it's not an argument, it's what is proven to happen time and again. Some countries regimes use religion in an evil way. I have yet to hear of any country using atheism in a "good way", all you really get is indifference. And were there purely atheist countries they'd soon be conquered by an assertive religion, a la the islamization of Europe.
Opinion: it seems there are no strong cultural values without religious underpinnings.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.
All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.
As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy




Curly and Moe solve all the problems of the world.

Anybody who finds common ground with QM is....

Really showing what he's made of.

I think we're partially in agreement. I would interpret "atheist government" to mean a government which enforces atheism. This is what your 4 examples are. Atheism isn't the problem with those governments/societies, enforcement is.

But then you seem to speak of government indifference as a bad thing. Government indifference is the pinnacle of government religious involvement.

It's also a little contradictory to claim that atheist societies are weak and give 4 examples where robust religious societies were taken over by the godless. Again, oppressive societies are weak because they breed enemies left and right, and because their populace, in time, will jump at the chance to have the government overthrown.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You are correct that it's not an argument, it's what is proven to happen time and again. Some countries regimes use religion in an evil way. I have yet to hear of any country using atheism in a "good way", all you really get is indifference. And were there purely atheist countries they'd soon be conquered by an assertive religion, a la the islamization of Europe.
Opinion: it seems there are no strong cultural values without religious underpinnings.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.
All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.
As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy

You are correct that it's not an argument, it's what is proven to happen time and again. Some countries regimes use religion in an evil way. I have yet to hear of any country using atheism in a "good way", all you really get is indifference. And were there purely atheist countries they'd soon be conquered by an assertive religion, a la the islamization of Europe.

Opinion: it seems there are no strong cultural values without religious underpinnings.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.
All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.
As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy