OK, the senate has completely lost their mind, it's official now.
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
The most charitable thing that can be said about the power of magical thoughts, sorry, prayers, is that it does nothing by itself and can be of some comfort to believers.
How outdated. There is growing consensus among psychologists that faith has a measurable benefit in terms of longevity. I guess that's how that Methuselah guy got purty old
If we're going to talk about prayer instead of the stupidity or cupidity of the Senate, we'd better define our terms. I think people mean all kinds of different things by the word prayer and have very different expectations.
How outdated. There is growing consensus among psychologists that faith has a measurable benefit in terms of longevity. I guess that's how that Methuselah guy got purty old
I don't see how my remark is undermined by any of those links. The best way to get old is not to get terminally ill - and, on average, believers do so later than non-believers.
It's a meta-analysis, which means that they analysed a bunch of other analyses. So, of those 42 trials, what are told about rigour, bias, etc etc? As well, it's not prayer, but a belief/religion as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIHR
Being involved in religion seems to explain a small part of why some people live longer than others, said the authors, but other reasons for longevity include a person's race, age, education, social support and physical health.
So, one aspect explains all?? Not according to this. The best way to do it is to find a community with fairly similar people and diets and then do a study.
Quote:
"Moreover, results seemed to indicate that those people with a high level of religious involvement were also less obese. In part, the effects of religious involvement on physical health variables like obesity appear to explain why religious involvement predicts reduced risk of mortality," said Dr. McCullough.
He obviously doesn't know that correlation doesn't equal causation. He has clearly decided that religion is the over-riding factor rather than class, social status or anything else such as, I don't know, diet.
What's more, he is part of the NIHR which appears to be shut, if the link on that page is to be believed. It's an ad page these days. The more superior NIHR is here and, bugger me, they appear to be a tad more rigourous in what they do.
Anyway, you said that what I said was outdated, yet the earliest of my articles was 5 years younger than yours. So I win the internets
Those people who complain that their prayers do not work, are not praying with sincerity of effort. They have lack of faith in their prayer. This lack of faith gets reflected in the way they pray. They are themselves not sure about getting results. That is why when they pray the prayer has no effect. After that they complain that their prayers do not work. Should they do that? If you are looking for results, pray with sincerity and pray with passion.
How simple!
Just assuming for the sake of the argument that prayers do work in some cases, let's make it absolutely clear that it is due to psychological mechanisms that can be explained in terms of science, and NOT because of any religious hocus pocus (ie. god listening to our prayers and depending on some weird criteria [known only to him/her] answering some of them.)
I am really about to lose my faith in humanity when I think of those poor sods suffering in hospitals really hoping that god will answer their prayers and heal them.
Worse still, they are ready to ask other people to do it for them in exchange of money. That's ... sorry can't find any other word.... retarded.
But, then again, we're only the third most intelligent species on this planet
Economically speaking, they take advantage of market laws - where's demand of some services, there'll be someone who'd be willing to fill the gap and supply it in exchange of cash. The problem is whether the clients (ie. patients) will be able to seek any (financial?) compensation if the provided services don't meet their expectations.
If I ask you for a million dollars and a lollipop, and you don't give them to me, but instead tell me I'm being a moron and that if I want a million dollars I should probably do something about it, does that mean you don't exist and that we didn't communicate?
How is that different than my praying to God for a cure to cancer and parking spot and not getting them? I wouldn't say the problem was with the power of prayer.
Prayer provisions, in and of itself, are not as significant as everything else within the healthcare bill combined = healthcare bill
The healthcare bill is, in and of itself, not as significant as everything else + healthcare bill = America 2009+
So, essentially, ya'll are arguing about derivatives of a quaint and graceful little problem we've got here, and you're not adequately focused on what you're actually trying to do.
vvvv
There are billions of other derivatives to be combed through with, hopefully, an exponentially larger amount of diligence and forethought than can be witnessed on LQ.o, but is anyone really doing that job besides the guys who are writing the problems? Who are they?
^^^^ that one.
What is the ratio for problems solved to problems created?
The first amendment, introduced by anti-abortion Democrats, bans federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create. Its consideration was considered a big win for them and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force other Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.
So how do you like the "Land of the Free" being run from a small section of Italy by a man with supreme power?
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
