Christain Ease...

mesquite wrote:

Raul-7 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Those who lack experience of faith will never understand.

God has already set a seal on their conscience. They will keep rejecting everything you try to convince them with when in reality it's the truth.

As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). (Quran 2:6-7)

Ahh! So it is allah's fault that some have no faith. That makes a great deal of sense I suppose.

I thought exactly the same then read ..and you said it!

What a load of nonsense it all is. So Allah this omnipotent omniscient ever present God of the Arabs determines that those who do not believe in him will not believe in him and hence deserve eternal torture in hell. What sort of an all merciful god is that? Why does the all merciful Allah wilfully condemn the majority of humanity to eternal damnation for following their own Gods/goddesses or indeed none at all? Islam is insane. You have a serious mental health issue Raul if you really believe that the first man God made was 60 miles/metres/millimetres/cubits/marshmallows tall.

Posted: Some scientific findings are arrived at in a purely scientific way.

BINGO!

Good observation; praying to god is a bit more random than science to get results. Science gets a higher score on results.

Good observation; praying to god is a bit more random than science to get results. Science gets a higher score on results.

real life wrote:

The article makes it clear that there was only superficial standardization ( each praying participant had to include the same single phrase ).

So obviously this study also was not scientific in any real sense of the word.

Only a veneer of standardization was fluffed on to try to claim respectability. What a joke.

Would you like to provide an example of a standardized prayer technique that would pass muster?

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

The article makes it clear that there was only superficial standardization ( each praying participant had to include the same single phrase ).

So obviously this study also was not scientific in any real sense of the word.

Only a veneer of standardization was fluffed on to try to claim respectability. What a joke.

Would you like to provide an example of a standardized prayer technique that would pass muster?

Do you truly not understand why a study claiming to be 'scientific' must have standardization?

If you want to study, for instance, whether praying the Lord's Prayer is 'effective', then each participant would pray the Lord's Prayer, using the same words, etc . Is this not obvious?

The problem with claiming to study 'prayer' is that it is vague. 1000 participants might pray 1000 different prayers.

It is like saying 'let's study if consuming organic matter is beneficial to health'. So 1000 participants are instructed to consume some organic matter.

Is it the only thing they consume?

What else do they consume?

What type of organic matter are each of them consuming? Is it beef steak or dung?

Unless you standardize, then your vague experiment is worthless.

Right on flushd. That is exactly the sort of sick puppy mindless rhetoric that Hep is distancing herself from.

How does one ever embrace such thought that parents getting cancer is the result of removing protection from the child.

mesquite, You started a good list, but there are dozens more that we can think up.

I recently saw a baby with two heads on tv; I'm sure god has all the answers for that one!