|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 3, 2006, 1:59 PM
Post #51 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
I have some questions for all the scientific experts out there.
Isn't it true that evolutionary theory implies that, through random gene mutation and natural selection, the traits which are an advantage to gene propagation will survive and evolve?
Doesn't scientific evidence suggest that religion has been a fundamental trait of human beings as far back as we can discover something about them?
Doesn't religious belief remain a prevalent, even dominant trait among human beings today? Whether or not it's very accurate, I'm looking at a pie chart now I found in google that claims about 3% of the people world wide are atheists and about 13% are non-religious (I suppose I would fall in that category). If this is anywhere near accurate, it means that more than 80% of the people world wide are religious.
Given this analysis, any 'true believer' in science and evolutionary theory would be forced to admit that being religious must be, or at least must have been an almost overwhelming advantage in the process of natural selection for human beings. So shouldn't all you scientific minded people be trying to figure out what that advantage is?
Even though I'm right next door to being an atheist, I can think of at least one case where I might turn to prayer. If, for example, my small daughter got a terminal disease. Or was kidnapped or disappeared. In a situation like this, I'm quite sure I could care less what the statistics of this particular study may or may not imply.
Another question for all the scientific experts out there: isn't the placebo effect a well established medical phenonmena? The obvious implication is that 'belief' can play a statistically significant role in at least some medical phenomena. All this study shows is that, in a VERY limited situation, the role of religious belief had no observable effect. This could be for various reasons and it almost seems a tad conterintuitive. But I really don't have the time to take a careful look at the study now.
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Apr 3, 2006, 3:16 PM
Post #52 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: I really hate to burst your bubble on this, but the significance of many statistical results is that they are statistically insignificant, which in fact does lend credence to the null hypothesis. This is not to say that they in any way endorse the null hypothesis, simply that it is the only option left after other theories have been found lacking. Let's take this someplace else for a minute, let's assume that we want to see if tanning beds cause skin cancer. If we find a statistically insignificant variation between the control group (those that did not tan in tanning beds) and the test group (those that tannedin tanning beds), it would be unlikely that there is a correlation between skin cancer and tanning beds. Any one study is not likely to be the final answer, but this one did in fact show that it is unlikely that prayer had any effect on these patients.
Yeah my bad! I think that confused me a bit. Lots of the research I do is with ecologists and statistically insignificant results are pretty much meaningless and far from publishable. I think that is almost the same in this study though. If we are talking about when statistically insignificant results are significant related to this like in testing of new drugs, &c. I hardly see this "scientific endeavor" surviving the rigors of any scientific evaluation. I would like to see the actual study and see the reason why they picked prayer of people who just had surgery? Also it is interesting to think that though the sample may have been pseudorandom some types of surgeries cause more complications than others and some hospital have more complications than others, due to technique, aseptic factors. Which surgeries were in which group?
Sorry about the statistical mix up I do biostatistics and we look for things to happen so insignificant results mean back to the drawing board!
PS. Sorry Jules!!!
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Apr 3, 2006, 3:26 PM
Post #53 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
I did a similar study to this one just now in my office. I checked whether my computer worked by testing whether it caused the sky to turn pink.
The sky remained largely blue, and so using the same rationale as this study cited, I was able to determine that my computer did not work.
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Apr 3, 2006, 3:26 PM
Post #54 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
In reply to: In reply to: I really hate to burst your bubble on this, but the significance of many statistical results is that they are statistically insignificant, which in fact does lend credence to the null hypothesis. This is not to say that they in any way endorse the null hypothesis, simply that it is the only option left after other theories have been found lacking. Let's take this someplace else for a minute, let's assume that we want to see if tanning beds cause skin cancer. If we find a statistically insignificant variation between the control group (those that did not tan in tanning beds) and the test group (those that tannedin tanning beds), it would be unlikely that there is a correlation between skin cancer and tanning beds. Any one study is not likely to be the final answer, but this one did in fact show that it is unlikely that prayer had any effect on these patients. backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal PS. Sorry Jules!!!
Sorry, I missed that, what were you saying?
:D
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Apr 3, 2006, 4:02 PM
Post #55 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
hahahah Jules, you don't deal with apologies well do ya :lol:
13% of people atheist? I read something similar but it talked about individual countires and it said that a lot of european countries are like 40 - 60% atheist or agnostic. so if you figure most arab and afric countries are like 0.5% atheist it might be true.
I think a nice study or comparison would be to compare education, crime and percentage of religous people in a country.
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Apr 3, 2006, 4:05 PM
Post #56 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
I have no problem with apologies, but will flaunt my superiority at any given opportunity.
One of the phrases I've heard most often in my life is "If I'd just listened to you in the first place..."
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Apr 3, 2006, 4:55 PM
Post #58 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
yeah I don't know how accurate this stuff was, but I'd like to see a breakdown by country. in itally christianity is a birthright, no one in their right mind would say they are atheist.
also I said atheist or agnostic. I knew only a handful of true atheists, but most people I know would say they are agnostic (unless you drive for 45 minutes out of St. Louis in any given direction lol)
most of my generation in germany ... pretty much 99.9% of people I knew there were agnostic. There definitely wasn't anyone who believed that the earth was 6000 years old :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Apr 3, 2006, 5:40 PM
Post #59 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: I did a similar study to this one just now in my office. I checked whether my computer worked by testing whether it caused the sky to turn pink. The sky remained largely blue, and so using the same rationale as this study cited, I was able to determine that my computer did not work.
yet another person who failed the analogy section on the SATs (or the European equivalent). Nobody has ever claimed that turning a computer on would make the sky pink, unlike the millions who claim that prayer can be used to cure the sick.
Your post also implies that prayer is good for something. Beyond any placebo effects what would you say it's good for?
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Apr 3, 2006, 5:45 PM
Post #60 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
Saving your heathen soul from hellfire, sinner!!
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Apr 3, 2006, 5:49 PM
Post #61 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: In reply to: I did a similar study to this one just now in my office. I checked whether my computer worked by testing whether it caused the sky to turn pink. The sky remained largely blue, and so using the same rationale as this study cited, I was able to determine that my computer did not work. yet another person who failed the analogy section on the SATs (or the European equivalent). Nobody has ever claimed that turning a computer on would make the sky pink, unlike the millions who claim that prayer can be used to cure the sick. Your post also implies that prayer is good for something. Beyond any placebo effects what would you say it's good for?
How many claims does it take for it to count?
The experiment seems flawed from the get go. There is no scientific basis for it and the way they went about it was flawed. Some sugery types are inevitably going to have more complications than others. Seems like the study is pseudo-replicated which also kind of destroys it.
But let me ask this question, how many people 'healed' who received prayer would you require for belief that prayer is real? 50%? 75%? 100%? or just significantly different from the non prayer receiving population?
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Apr 3, 2006, 6:19 PM
Post #62 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
Fucking right Prayer doesn't work...Lazy-assed slob sits at home all day collecting unemployment and mooching off friends, eating Funyuns and Cheetos, and swilling Miller High Life... he's gotta be a petit 320 by now.
Fucking Prayer, needs to get off his fat ass and get a fucking job, is what...
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Apr 3, 2006, 6:23 PM
Post #63 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: How many claims does it take for it to count?
The thing about religion is most people desperately want to believe, evidence be damned. Because of this need to see the hand of god, I would not be convinced no matter how many claims were made.
In reply to: The experiment seems flawed from the get go. There is no scientific basis for it and the way they went about it was flawed. Some sugery types are inevitably going to have more complications than others. Seems like the study is pseudo-replicated which also kind of destroys it.
I know very little about this study, so I can't claim that it was perfect. Just for the fun of it, what kind of experiment would you design to "prove" that prayer works or not? To say it another way, what evidence would prove to you that prayer doesn't make any difference?
In reply to: just significantly different from the non prayer receiving population?
this would be good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 3, 2006, 6:32 PM
Post #64 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: WRONG! Try reading the post next time.
Hey boondock. Since you obviously put so much faith in statistical studies, I'm sure you'll base your lifestyle on the following:
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/health/401091.stm
In reply to: A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion. Similar results were produced by the University of California at Berkeley in a study of some 5,000 people aged 21 to 65. Those who attended religious services at least once a week had a 23% lower risk of dying over the 28 years on which the research was based.
So boondock, considering how you're so SCIENTIFIC, I would have to conclude you are an IDIOT if you don't start attending church immediately at least once a week. Or maybe you just want to be more sickly and DIE younger? Or maybe, like most people, you just don't base your life choices on a statistical study?
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Apr 3, 2006, 6:35 PM
Post #65 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: In reply to: How many claims does it take for it to count? The thing about religion is most people desperately want to believe, evidence be damned. Because of this need to see the hand of god, I would not be convinced no matter how many claims were made. In reply to: The experiment seems flawed from the get go. There is no scientific basis for it and the way they went about it was flawed. Some sugery types are inevitably going to have more complications than others. Seems like the study is pseudo-replicated which also kind of destroys it. I know very little about this study, so I can't claim that it was perfect. Just for the fun of it, what kind of experiment would you design to "prove" that prayer works or not? To say it another way, what evidence would prove to you that prayer doesn't make any difference? In reply to: just significantly different from the non prayer receiving population? this would be good enough for me.
I think it would be hard to prove. I don't think you could create a study because there will most always be extenuating circumstances.
Do you think you could think of one to prove prayer?
I mean maybe you could have people pray for an object to move? But I am sure there would be many arguments then about whether God wanted it to be moved... &c.
I am not saying I am a prayer advocate. I think if people believe in a God they should believe he gave us modern medicine to help us.
I don't think prayer is something that should be used like "Please God help me get a job." no go out and effing get a job don't ask God for one when McDonalds has a help wanted sign in the window.
Just like many sicknesses, don't ask God to heal your broken leg when there is a hospital 5 minutes from your house with Doctors to help you.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Apr 3, 2006, 6:36 PM
Post #66 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: In reply to: WRONG! Try reading the post next time. Hey boondock. Since you obviously put so much faith in statistical studies, I'm sure you'll base your lifestyle on the following: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/health/401091.stm In reply to: A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion. Similar results were produced by the University of California at Berkeley in a study of some 5,000 people aged 21 to 65. Those who attended religious services at least once a week had a 23% lower risk of dying over the 28 years on which the research was based. So boondock, considering how you're so SCIENTIFIC, I would have to conclude you are an IDIOT if you don't start attending church immediately at least once a week. Or maybe you just want to be more sickly and DIE younger? Or maybe, like most people, you just don't base your life choices on a statistical study?
once again someone who doesn't understand cause and effect. Did you know that there is a high correlation between stork population and birth rates in Europe? OMG, BABIES COME FROM STORKS! WE PROVED IT!
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 3, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #67 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: WRONG! Try reading the post next time. Hey boondock. Since you obviously put so much faith in statistical studies, I'm sure you'll base your lifestyle on the following: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/health/401091.stm In reply to: A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion. Similar results were produced by the University of California at Berkeley in a study of some 5,000 people aged 21 to 65. Those who attended religious services at least once a week had a 23% lower risk of dying over the 28 years on which the research was based. So boondock, considering how you're so SCIENTIFIC, I would have to conclude you are an IDIOT if you don't start attending church immediately at least once a week. Or maybe you just want to be more sickly and DIE younger? Or maybe, like most people, you just don't base your life choices on a statistical study? once again someone who doesn't understand cause and effect. Did you know that there is a high correlation between stork population and birth rates in Europe? OMG, BABIES COME FROM STORKS! WE PROVED IT!
Who is it that doesn't understand, Kubai? Dr Harold Koenig, from the Duke University Medical Center and his group who directed one of the studies? Or the Berkley group who directed the other study? How do think medical studies are done?
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Apr 3, 2006, 7:48 PM
Post #68 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: WRONG! Try reading the post next time. Hey boondock. Since you obviously put so much faith in statistical studies, I'm sure you'll base your lifestyle on the following: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/health/401091.stm In reply to: A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion. Similar results were produced by the University of California at Berkeley in a study of some 5,000 people aged 21 to 65. Those who attended religious services at least once a week had a 23% lower risk of dying over the 28 years on which the research was based. So boondock, considering how you're so SCIENTIFIC, I would have to conclude you are an IDIOT if you don't start attending church immediately at least once a week. Or maybe you just want to be more sickly and DIE younger? Or maybe, like most people, you just don't base your life choices on a statistical study? once again someone who doesn't understand cause and effect. Did you know that there is a high correlation between stork population and birth rates in Europe? OMG, BABIES COME FROM STORKS! WE PROVED IT! Who is it that doesn't understand, Kubai? Dr Harold Koenig, from the Duke University Medical Center and his group who directed one of the studies? Or the Berkley group who directed the other study? How do think medical studies are done?
People who don't smoke and drink and have lots of friends are more likely to lead long healthy lives. People who regularly attend church are more likely to have lots of friends and avoid smoking and drinking. If I'm an anti-social alcoholic I'm not going to suddenly increase my life-expectancy by going to church, I'm going to increase it by cutting down on my drinking and making some friends.
Not even the original article you posted claims that church makes people live longer.
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 3, 2006, 8:21 PM
Post #69 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: WRONG! Try reading the post next time. Hey boondock. Since you obviously put so much faith in statistical studies, I'm sure you'll base your lifestyle on the following: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/health/401091.stm In reply to: A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion. Similar results were produced by the University of California at Berkeley in a study of some 5,000 people aged 21 to 65. Those who attended religious services at least once a week had a 23% lower risk of dying over the 28 years on which the research was based. So boondock, considering how you're so SCIENTIFIC, I would have to conclude you are an IDIOT if you don't start attending church immediately at least once a week. Or maybe you just want to be more sickly and DIE younger? Or maybe, like most people, you just don't base your life choices on a statistical study? once again someone who doesn't understand cause and effect. Did you know that there is a high correlation between stork population and birth rates in Europe? OMG, BABIES COME FROM STORKS! WE PROVED IT! Who is it that doesn't understand, Kubai? Dr Harold Koenig, from the Duke University Medical Center and his group who directed one of the studies? Or the Berkley group who directed the other study? How do think medical studies are done? People who don't smoke and drink and have lots of friends are more likely to lead long healthy lives. People who regularly attend church are more likely to have lots of friends and avoid smoking and drinking. If I'm an anti-social alcoholic I'm not going to suddenly increase my life-expectancy by going to church, I'm going to increase it by cutting down on my drinking and making some friends. Not even the original article you posted claims that church makes people live longer.
This is WAY beyond the meaning of my post to boondock, but what the hell. I imagine the researchers, being from some of the world's best medical schools would have tried to juggle these factors into their analysis. The researchers are probably at least as clever as you are, Kubi. If they would have felt they had discovered that cutting down on drinking and making some friends increases life expectancy, I suppose they would have reported it that way.
In reply to: Dr Harold Koenig, from the Duke University Medical Center, said: "Participating in religious services is associated with significant health benefits in elderly people, even when you take into account the fact the religious people tend to start out with better health practices and more social support."
The point in my posts was something different. People (including boondock and yourself) do not make important life choices, like the choice to join a church, or the choice to believe in and pray to a merciful God based on a statistical study. Does boondock's precious statistical study really show that believing in and praying to a merciful God is not some kind of benefit? Do the studies I produced really prove the believing in an participating in religious activities are a health benefit? If I should laugh at one, based on boondock's study, why shouldn't he join a church based on mine? And even more important, while you're at it: what is the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 3, 2006, 9:43 PM
Post #71 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: To organic, not only have you proven that you are no expert on stats, but you have also proven that you don't know s--- about what "complications" are. Complications are a bad thing, it means something went wrong and some poor bastard is either in a world of hurt or dead. In reply to: Overall, 59 percent of patients who knew they were being prayed for had complications, compared to 51 percent of the patients who did not receive prayers, but the difference was not statistically significant. This means that people who got prayed came out worse on the average. Which means that your cliff analogy is backwards, the believers should be the ones splattered all over the ground while the nonbelievers just float away. EDIT *** This post should have been addressed to yanqui my bad.***
Believers splattered and nonbelievers floating away. Now there's a God I can relate to. Although it would be a sort of inherent contradiction, a paradox so to speak, to believe in that God. We would be splattered, just for believing, even if we approved. A complication, no? You so have helped me to understand the meaning of that concept. Something like the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. A complication, no? Well Gottlob Frege sure thought it was, when Bertrand Russell told him about it.
My life, although not certainly not chalkfree, is now so much more complete.
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Apr 3, 2006, 9:46 PM
Post #72 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
i just wanna know what crawled up yanqui's ass. "my precious study" wtf? it was just something I read and thought it was funny-- tehe people who got prayers ended up with more complications during recovery. based on that, i'd rather no one pray for me ...
the end.
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 3, 2006, 9:49 PM
Post #73 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: i just wanna know what crawled up yanqui's ass. "my precious study" wtf? it was just something I read and thought it was funny-- tehe people who got prayers ended up with more complications during recovery. based on that, i'd rather no one pray for me ... the end.
I thought I had boondock_saint stuck up there. But now it looks like it's been passed.
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Apr 3, 2006, 10:14 PM
Post #74 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
btw, the study was not about whether or not you believe in prayer - it was about people praying for other people and it not working out so well.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Apr 3, 2006, 10:47 PM
Post #75 of 113
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
seriously organic, c'mon.
In reply to: Differences in clinical outcomes between treatment groups were not statistically significant. |
|
|
|
|
|
