Winnipeg police chief touts prayer to help combat crime

[GostHacked]

I don't think anyone is proposing forcing people to pray, nor is anyone offering scientific proof of prayer. If you don't want to pray BubberMiley then don't pray. I don't see how ridiculing and patronizing those who pray as being helpful. Even internalizing ones thoughts and reflecting can be seen as prayer even though one isn't necessarily praying to a 'God" per se.

Simply praying without action makes one feel good without having to really do anything about it. Action is what is needed in order to make the prayer effective, otherwise, it is just .. praying.

[Merlin]

Simply praying without action makes one feel good without having to really do anything about it. Action is what is needed in order to make the prayer effective, otherwise, it is just .. praying.

Precisely what I said in my earlier post in this thread a few posts up. great!

[Guest]

I prayed Obama would win and it worked! Scientific proof!

One would imagine that the Republicans, on balance, are the more likely to pray. How come Mitt didn't win?

[Merlin]

One would imagine that the Republicans, on balance, are the more likely to pray. How come Mitt didn't win?

For people who do pray they know that one cannot really pray for direct benefit. One cannot really pray for things but instead for guidance and things along those lines. Indirect sort of requests.

[Guest]

For people who do pray they know that one cannot really pray for direct benefit. One cannot really pray for things but instead for guidance and things along those lines. Indirect sort of requests.

Like, not Mitt winning, but say, Michelle being exposed as an Iranian spy? That sort of thing?

[Guest American Woman]

Simply praying without action makes one feel good without having to really do anything about it. Action is what is needed in order to make the prayer effective, otherwise, it is just .. praying.

Which is exactly what has been said, by the police officer in question.

[Mighty AC]

For people who do pray they know that one cannot really pray for direct benefit. One cannot really pray for things but instead for guidance and things along those lines. Indirect sort of requests.

From what I understand that line is only used when prayers are not answered. According to betsy, if you pray for direct benefit and you receive benefit, a prayer was answered. There are no coincidences.

[Guest American Woman]

From what I understand that line is only used when prayers are not answered. According to betsy, if you pray for direct benefit and you receive benefit, a prayer was answered. There are no coincidences.

I think the key words there are "according to betsy...."

[guyser]

Let me give you an example:

There was a big fire in our town. Our house is situated on the corner of the block. The house across the street was already burning. Of course we've already vacated our house at this time, had already gotten out as much as we can.....my dad carrying the statue of Jesus Christ (he was a Catholic).

Knowing my dad and mom, I'm sure they were praying. In my heart, I was praying.

My elderly parents and I were on the street watching anxiously as our house started to emit smoke. Then the fire leaped from the burning house onto a corner of our roof, and a small part of the roof caught fire. We knew the house was doomed. The sinking feeling, even the groan that came from my dad. I was already thinking of getting an apartment to house my uprooted parents - and I'll have to shoulder everything financially since their income is also tied to the building (which had several commercial apartments for rent).

Suddenly, we saw the mayor pointing at our house - and all the firemen gathered and focused everything on our house. Apparently the mayor told them: "Don't let that house burn! If it burns, the fire will reach the market!" Our house was saved, everything was okay (except for that few inches of burned roof jutting from the corner). Nothing was even wet inside.

To you it is perhaps a coincidence, or any other reasons you might come up with to explain that.

But to us who prayed, it was a prayer answered.

Should have hung the tennis ball like I did. Two years and no polar bears, probably ....nay certainly would have prevented even that tiny corner of the roof burning!

[betsy]

We are talking about the mechanism by which a prayers are answered. If there is no such thing as a coincidence then I assume you are claiming a magical being interfered in some way. That is an extraordinary claim. In all other areas of life we require evidence to justify extraordinary claims.

We require evidence to justify claims. They don't have to be extraordinary!

I am talking from the viewpoint of a believer - one who prays. I'm talking about faith.

You are not a believer, therefore you don't pray. I don't expect you to understand what I'm trying to say so what's the point of us debating about prayers.

All I'm saying is that whaver reasons you may have for donating - the result remains the same. YOU GAVE. To the believer who prayed for help, your donation is seen as an answer to the prayer. I'm talking about the believer. Not you.

Just because you are a non-believing donor - that doesn't matter! Whatever your motives are for donating - that doesn't matter!

And yes, to a Christian nothing is coincidental. So, yes we believe that God has His own plans, and He intervenes. Our prayers are not always answered pronto. And usually they're not answered in the way we hope or expect it should be!

I don't have to give you any evidences about it since I'm not trying to convince you to believe me. Besides, it's all about faith.

Edited November 10, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

We require evidence to justify claims. They don't have to be extraordinary![/Quote] Minor claims require little evidence. Major or extraordinary claims require more evidence. For example, I would most likely accept the simple assertion that Bob ate a hamburger for dinner. However, if Bob claimed to eat a sasquatch steak and Dodo eggs, rational people would not accept it without serious evidence.

All I'm saying is that whaver reasons you may have for donating - the result remains the same. YOU GAVE. To the believer who prayed for help, your donation is seen as an answer to the prayer. I'm talking about the believer. Not you.[/Quote] If you're saying that a believer simply labels a coincidence as a prayer being answered even though it is really a coincidence, then I agree with you. That's no different that a sports fan claiming that by wearing their lucky underwear they influenced the outcome. It's just a fun BS ritual, that nobody (including the fan) believes is real. If that fan did actually believe and assert that their lucky gitch had an impact, that would be an extraordinary claim requiring some serious evidence. Without that evidence, rational people should suspect the fan is delusional.

And yes, to a Christian nothing is coincidental. So, yes we believe that God has His own plans, and He intervenes. Our prayers are not always answered pronto. And usually they're not answered in the way we hope or expect it should be!

I don't have to give you any evidences about it since I'm not trying to convince you to believe me. Besides, it's all about faith.

Like the delusional fan, by suggesting that a magical sky being actually interferes, you are again making an extraordinary claim. One that cannot simply be justified by your own belief in that claim.

For example let's say you win the lottery and I claim that it was influenced by leprechauns. That is an extraordinary claim that cannot be justified by my own belief in leprechauns. Going on to say that you have to have faith in leprechauns does not reduce the bat shit crazy nature of that claim.

[Merlin]

Why do non believers always seem to think that believers have to prove God exists to them? Sort of like the believer is forced to prove it. I simply do not care who believes in God and who doesn't. Religion is a personal thing so why not let it be personal? Why must the non believer always seek to embarrass the believer instead of allowing the believer to believe in peace? Live and let live, that's what I say.

[Mighty AC]

What if believers are also trying to prove their belief system with science? What if believers are trying to influence public policy based on their ancient mythology?

I don't question or even discuss religion with passive, live and let live, type believers. However, if somebody wants religious dogma taught as science in the classroom or uses their faith to justify sexist, orientationist or racist ideals then their beliefs are no longer harmless delusions.

[Sleipnir]

Minor claims require little evidence. Major or extraordinary claims require more evidence. For example, I would most likely accept the simple assertion that Bob ate a hamburger for dinner. However, if Bob claimed to eat a sasquatch steak and Dodo eggs, rational people would not accept it without serious evidence.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't question or even discuss religion with passive, live and let live, type believers. However, if somebody wants religious dogma taught as science in the classroom or uses their faith to justify sexist, orientationist or racist ideals then their beliefs are no longer harmless delusions.

For the record, a lot of religious people feel that way too; but referring to God as a "magical being" and prayer as "BS" et al is just the flip side of the coin. You can object to their desire to push their beliefs on you without trying to push your beliefs on others, claiming to "know" the answers, just as they are.

[betsy]

What if believers are also trying to prove their belief system with science?

Well I can't help it if science happens to support the Bible, can I?

What if believers are trying to influence public policy based on their ancient mythology?

Your belief in evolution is even more "mythological" than mine, to put it bluntly! At least I've got several points - being backed up by science - and they seem to be coming out now at a faster rate by the looks of it. On the other hand your pathetic evolution theory has yet to find a SINGLE EVIDENCE!

MightyAC

I don't question or even discuss religion with passive, live and let live, type believers. However, if somebody wants religious dogma taught as science in the classroom or uses their faith to justify sexist, orientationist or racist ideals then their beliefs are no longer harmless delusions.

Bingo! Just like I said, a lot of resistance against religion has something to do with the rules and moral laws dictated by religion.

Edited November 10, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Minor claims require little evidence. Major or extraordinary claims require more evidence. For example, I would most likely accept the simple assertion that Bob ate a hamburger for dinner. However, if Bob claimed to eat a sasquatch steak and Dodo eggs, rational people would not accept it without serious evidence.

Well look what's here to haunt you! Tadaaaaaa....

You cited your source in the other topic, who clings to the theory of birds evolving from dinosaurs which is a major/remarkable claim - not only without solid evidence - but is actually being refuted, and by the looks of it, being proven false!

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links

http://www.scienceda...90609092055.htm

Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

http://www.scienceda...00209183335.htm

Then in your desperate attempt at refuting what science daily says, you make this remarkable/major claim:

Mighty AC, on 09 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Evolution and even speciation are observable in real time. What you are referring to here is simply archaeology. The new fossil discoveries simply change where they draw the branches on ancestral charts..

What makes you think your assumption should even be taken with a grain of salt....like as if you actually understand what you're spouting about, when it shows you failed to even recognize the implication how your own source failed the very basics of imparting credible information!

For all your talk about "Minor claims require little evidence. Major or extraordinary claims require more evidence," where's your evidence?

Therefore, all the following baloney you're spouting below.....

MightyAC:

If you're saying that a believer simply labels a coincidence as a prayer being answered even though it is really a coincidence, then I agree with you. That's no different that a sports fan claiming that by wearing their lucky underwear they influenced the outcome. It's just a fun BS ritual, that nobody (including the fan) believes is real. If that fan did actually believe and assert that their lucky gitch had an impact, that would be an extraordinary claim requiring some serious evidence. Without that evidence, rational people should suspect the fan is delusional.[/font][/color]

Like the delusional fan, by suggesting that a magical sky being actually interferes, you are again making an extraordinary claim. One that cannot simply be justified by your own belief in that claim.

For example let's say you win the lottery and I claim that it was influenced by leprechauns. That is an extraordinary claim that cannot be justified by my own belief in leprechauns. Going on to say that you have to have faith in leprechauns does not reduce the bat shit crazy nature of that claim.

....is actually describing you!

Not only did you not provide any evidences at all.....but I even ended up HELPING YOU by getting the evidences for you - although the evidences I've un-earthed had blown your rebuttal to smithereens.

Well, at least you've been given some valuable information by moi - at least I deserve a thank for that - so you wouldn't be clinging to an outdated and refuted theory and be making a fool of yourself!

You've got your faith, and I've got mine. The only difference between us is that yours has no legs to stand on - nada!

Furthermore....your faith is becoming quite a caricature.

You wanna see REMARKABLE EVIDENCES OF "EVOLUTION" - check out all the suppositions throughout history! They keep evolving. At a very fast rate!

Unless you've got any sensible thing to say....I'll ignore you for now. I'm busy at the other forum!

Edited November 10, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

I have never met someone quite like you Betsy. Sure, I have met other evangelical, the bible is the inerrant word of God types before; but, never one that simultaneously used and abused science in an attempt to prop up their position. Ignore away, I will not miss this conversation. Despite the fact that I find your dishonest debating to be both frustrating and exhausting I completely understand why you do it. You're in a very hard place. While scientific understanding is free to move with the ever expanding body of evidence you are bound to the knowledge and understanding of a very primitive culture. Good luck with that.

[Mighty AC]

For the record, a lot of religious people feel that way too; but referring to God as a "magical being" and prayer as "BS" et al is just the flip side of the coin. You can object to their desire to push their beliefs on you without trying to push your beliefs on others, claiming to "know" the answers, just as they are.

Your belief system does claim that your god is a magical being. I also do not claim to "know" the unknowable. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, it is not a positive claim that deities do not exist. I'm willing to bet you have a similar lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, unicorns, big foot, witches and a living Elvis.

Now we don't have many discussions dedicated to denouncing these beliefs because society punishes believers of most improbable claims with teasing and ridicule.

If somebody tried to convince you that the universe was actually created by a creature made of pasta you would correctly denounce the idea, unless some very serious evidence was presented. Right? That's just critical thinking.

For whatever reason though our culture still tolerates the complete suspension of critical thinking in just one case, religion. Your belief system claims some wild things like every species on the earth past and present being stored on a large boat. Why should this one area be protected from rational scrutiny?

[Sleipnir]

I have never met someone quite like you Betsy.

You just realized that?

[Guest American Woman]

Your belief system does claim that your god is a magical being.

You have no idea what my belief system is - and you do not have the answers to what God is.

Again. You are just the opposite side of the coin of the religious people who believe their belief is The Belief and spout it as fact. And there are quite a few of you, many who are just as insulting and close-minded and righteous as the religious you criticize.

I also do not claim to "know" the unknowable.

You just did, by claiming that God is a "magical being." "Magic" and "religion" are two very different things.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief, it is not a positive claim that deities do not exist.

Yes it is. You are referring to agnostics.

I'm willing to bet you have a similar lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, unicorns, big foot, witches and a living Elvis.

And you just keep proving my point.

Now we don't have many discussions dedicated to denouncing these beliefs because society punishes believers of most improbable claims with teasing and ridicule.

If somebody tried to convince you that the universe was actually created by a creature made of pasta you would correctly denounce the idea, unless some very serious evidence was presented. Right? That's just critical thinking.

For whatever reason though our culture still tolerates the complete suspension of critical thinking in just one case, religion. Your belief system claims some wild things like every species on the earth past and present being stored on a large boat. Why should this one area be protected from rational scrutiny?

Again, you have no idea of my beliefs - and your claims to have the answers, to believe only non-believers engage in "critical thought," makes your mindset no better than the /fundamentalist/extremists that you criticize and insult.

Edited November 11, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

I have never met someone quite like you Betsy. Sure, I have met other evangelical, the bible is the inerrant word of God types before; but, never one that simultaneously used and abused science in an attempt to prop up their position. Ignore away, I will not miss this conversation.

Why can't I use science? Why shouldn't I use science? When I've repeatedly stated several times on this board that I BELIEVE SCIENCE WAS GIVEN TO US BY GOD?

I believe that science was created to fulfill a role. It has a purpose. And I assume that its purpose is to reveal to us what God wants us to know and understand - in His own way, in His own time.

Despite the fact that I find your dishonest debating to be both frustrating and exhausting

What's dishonest about it? The fact that you can't refute my reasonings? Well I can understand your frustration and exhaustion - trying to refute the truth.

I completely understand why you do it. You're in a very hard place. While scientific understanding is free to move with the ever expanding body of evidence you are bound to the knowledge and understanding of a very primitive culture. Good luck with that.

Let's see if you can wrap your head around this. Here's my logic:

Fact: I believe in God. I believe that God created, and had given us science to reveal and explain what God wants us to know and understand.

THEREFORE, I can accept the irrefutable and absolute fact that science reveals.

So, what does that mean?

Should evolution ever become an irrefutable and absolute fact, I can easily accept it whole-heartedly!

I can freely - and comfortably - go where the evidence leads. In fact, Christians can!

On the other hand......guess who's definitely bound and got himself in a corner? Who's trapped in a teeny-weeny box?

Neo-darwin atheists like you.

You cannot step out of that box. You've got to remain CLOSE-MINDED! Just look at your so-called scientist source, who admittedly confessed he hadn't read the article he was responding to, and yet ridiculed the scientist who made the discovery.

Now I haven’t read the whole paper (link is below),....

......

Just because one feature is now required for the formation of the other doesn’t mean that one evolved before the other. Got that, MSNBC? Oh, and you too, Dr. Freeman.

http://whyevolutioni...before-the-egg/

Then it turns out, he still clings to a theory that's refuted and being proven to be false!

When does a professional ever confess to not having done his homework before commenting, and attacking? Sloppy and irresponsible, to say the least.

This is the kind of scientist you guys pin your faith on? At least part of his blog title fits: Godawful science reporting!

But of course, being atheist, evolution has got to be the answer! It must be the answer! So, you're trapped! That's why we see all the suppositions "evolving" continuously in an effort to find the evidences that will fit their theory of evolution.

You may think it is still science MightyAC, that you follow.....but the fact is, it is no longer science when it cannot go freely anywhere in pursuit of evidence(s) in its honest quest for facts.

It is no longer science when it confines itself in a tiny box, so afraid to step out of it, just in case it comes face-to-face with something it doesn't want to exist. It's become just another faith - masquerading as science.

So who's being dis-honest and abusing science?

Edited November 11, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

MightyAC

I also do not claim to "know" the unknowable. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, it is not a positive claim that deities do not exist.

Oh, you poor confused soul.

Definition of ATHEISM

2

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity

b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Edited November 11, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I'm willing to bet you have a similar lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, unicorns, big foot, witches and a living Elvis.

Now we don't have many discussions dedicated to denouncing these beliefs because society punishes believers of most improbable claims with teasing and ridicule.

FYI, witches do exist. Some are Wiccans.

If someone find evidences for the existence of Thor, Zeus, unicorns, big foot, and a living Elvis....wouldn't we take them a little more seriously?

If you guys find an irrefutable evidence for evolution, wouldn't we believe?

Edited November 11, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Merlin

Why do non believers always seem to think that believers have to prove God exists to them? Sort of like the believer is forced to prove it. I simply do not care who believes in God and who doesn't. Religion is a personal thing so why not let it be personal? Why must the non believer always seek to embarrass the believer instead of allowing the believer to believe in peace? Live and let live, that's what I say.

MightyAC

What if believers are also trying to prove their belief system with science?

I really do find your whining very funny! This is so like a little tyke clutching his security blanket, only to have someone yank it from you!

or...

The way you carry and swing science around like your big fat weapon, but instead, someone whacked you with it!

Edited November 11, 2012 by betsy