God trumps doctors for many Americans.

[Enigma]

An eye-opening survey reveals widespread belief that divine intervention can revive dying patients. And, researchers said, doctors "need to be prepared to deal with families who are waiting for a miracle. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/18/god.vs.doctors.ap/index.html)......

[stabiz]

I blame this on Greys Anatomy.

[Fincuan]

I agree. People should spend their time with House and Bodies instead.

[cj95]

Im an RN who works inthe ICU, so I see this alot.

Most Doctors are too chicken to talk to the families about the reality of the situation and usually leave the door open for 'hope' when in most xases the patient is already dead.


That said, I have seen some pretty miraculous recoveries of people that I thought were done for but overall that is not the situation.

[Platapus]

We used to call this "Vis medicatrix naturae" - The healing power of nature

[jumpy]

Sorry, but ...LOL!

[joegrundman]

It's certainly cheaper:)

[Digital_Trucker]

Not exactly a definitive scientific study. A whopping thousand people surveyed over the phone. IMO surveys are a crock:lol:

[Tango589]

We used to call this "Vis medicatrix naturae" - The healing power of nature

How about 'Deus ex machina'?

[Jimbuna]

Not exactly a definitive scientific study. A whopping thousand people surveyed over the phone. IMO surveys are a crock:lol:

Probably rang them during the cheap rate period as well :lol:

[Platapus]

We used to call this "Vis medicatrix naturae" - The healing power of nature

How about 'Deus ex machina'?


Aint that a video game?
:lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

:roll:

Reminds me of the boy who was supposedly cured of his tumors (which were all throughout his body) by God...

Tumors came back a month later. The boy was also receiving kemo. Had nothing to do with God. It's science and medicine...

[Platapus]

A belief in god can give some people hope. Hope combined with medical care can be enough to turn a person's ailment around.

Most doctors would agree that a positive mental attitude can do wonders for a patient. Hope can give some people that positive mental attitude.

It is only when patients concentrate on the hope and neglect the medical sciences that is disturbing.

[Letum]

Thats nothing compared to how often god trumps taking personal moral responsibility. :shifty:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Most doctors would agree that a positive mental attitude can do wonders for a patient. Hope can give some people that positive mental attitude.




Similarly they can make themselves sick. Hypochondriacs:roll:

[Platapus]

Most doctors would agree that a positive mental attitude can do wonders for a patient. Hope can give some people that positive mental attitude.




Similarly they can make themselves sick. Hypochondriacs:roll:

Or Munchausen syndrome. Both are different but serious mental illnesses.

[SUBMAN1]

Mental state of mind probably has more to do with how one lives or dies than any other factor.

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S

[Platapus]

Mental state of mind probably has more to do with how one lives or dies than any other factor.

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S

As a priest friend of mine once told me: god answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no.:nope:

[Morts]

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S

now...im not trying to be rude or insult anybodys religion...but that is the worst load of you know what ive heard since the last time i went to church

[August]

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S
now...im not trying to be rude or insult anybodys religion...but that is the worst load of you know what ive heard since the last time i went to church

You claim you're not trying to be rude or insulting in the first part of that sentence then go ahead and be rude and insulting in the second part. :roll:

[Sailor Steve]

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S
now...im not trying to be rude or insult anybodys religion...but that is the worst load of you know what ive heard since the last time i went to church

You claim you're not trying to be rude or insulting in the first part of that sentence then go ahead and be rude and insulting in the second part. :roll:
He said he wasn't trying to be rude and insulting to anyone's religion, and he wasn't. It was a generic, all-encompassing religious insult.
:rotfl:

[Letum]

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S
now...im not trying to be rude or insult anybodys religion...but that is the worst load of you know what ive heard since the last time i went to church
You claim you're not trying to be rude or insulting in the first part of that sentence then go ahead and be rude and insulting in the second part. :roll:

I've gotta agree with this. :shifty:

[SUBMAN1]

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S
now...im not trying to be rude or insult anybodys religion...but that is the worst load of you know what ive heard since the last time i went to churchAnd yes, you are rude.

Next time you go to church, go read up on the story about the Gideon's Fleece. He was the only one allowed to test god. You cannot.

-S

[Digital_Trucker]

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S
now...im not trying to be rude or insult anybodys religion...but that is the worst load of you know what ive heard since the last time i went to church
You claim you're not trying to be rude or insulting in the first part of that sentence then go ahead and be rude and insulting in the second part. :roll:

Amen

[Enigma]

It seems as if non believers are called rude and offensive when voicing their opinions, and believers preaching their beliefs can do no wrong.

The post and opinion in question consisted of poorly chosen words, for sure. Just always seem the non believer is the bad guy....

[Sailor Steve]

I disagree. He wasn't rude and offensive because he didn't believe it; he was rude and offensive when he called it a load of "you know what".

But on the other hand, I agree with his basic premise: I see no real evidence for divine intervention in medical cases; just people believing that's what happened.

[Digital_Trucker]

It seems as if non believers are called rude and offensive when voicing their opinions, and believers preaching their beliefs can do no wrong.

The post and opinion in question consisted of poorly chosen words, for sure. Just always seem the non believer is the bad guy....
If he had been a religious person and he'd had been that rude and offensive when voicing his opinion, I'd have reacted the same way. Rude and offensive is rude and offensive wherever it comes from. I didn't see anyone here calling his lack of belief a "load of crap" or did I miss something?

[Enigma]

In clarification:

I was making a general observation, that I was reminded of reading this thread. As I said in my previous post, his words were poorly chosen, I agree with you guys on that. Just thinking out loud ;)

[Sailor Steve]

I didn't see anyone here calling his lack of belief a "load of crap" or did I miss something?
I have to disagree again, this time with both you and Enigma. Not on this thread, but that has indeed happened in both directions on several others I've read.

[Digital_Trucker]

I didn't see anyone here calling his lack of belief a "load of crap" or did I miss something? I have to disagree again, this time with both you and Enigma. Not on this thread, but that has indeed happened in both directions on several others I've read.

My bad, I should have said anyone in this thread. That's what I meant.

[Jimbuna]

Well.....I'm well and truly confused now http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/wacko.gif

[August]

Well.....I'm well and truly confused now http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/wacko.gif

But you have the coolest smileys Jimbo...

[Jimbuna]

Well.....I'm well and truly confused now http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/wacko.gif

But you have the coolest smileys Jimbo...



http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/7664/200salutehc9.gif

[Stealth Hunter]

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S

now...im not trying to be rude or insult anybodys religion...but that is the worst load of you know what ive heard since the last time i went to church

Indeed...:shifty:

Reminds me of these people (ignore the evolution part; just showing what is generally preached throughout Christianity the world over):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

[Digital_Trucker]

Reminds me of these people (ignore the evolution part; just showing what is generally preached throughout Christianity the world over):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk
I believe that making the generalization that all Christianity the world over is reflected by these videos (on such an authoritative source as Youtube, no less) is a bit of a stretch. Just my personal, biased as it is, opinion.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, not all are of course. However, the large majority in the United States (save for the Lutherans and Methodists) seem to be this way (especially the Baptists and, of course, the Evangelicals).

[Sailor Steve]

My bad, I should have said anyone in this thread. That's what I meant.
And rereading your post after reading this one, I begin to see that. Not all your bad.:oops: :sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

Well, not all are of course. However, the large majority in the United States (save for the Lutherans and Methodists) seem to be this way (especially the Baptists and, of course, the Evangelicals).
I was once an Evangelical Baptist, and even at the time I recognized the Catholic attitude that there is a lot of room for questioning, even when you believe strongly. Maybe this was because I went to a Catholic high school. I'm not bothered by belief, or even preaching. What bothers me is the reading I've done over the last year or so in which anyone who suggested that any part of the Bible might be allegorical was deried as a 'Liberal Christian' or even a 'False Christian'. At the same time the Religious Right is claiming that America was founded on 'Christian Principles' and that Christianity is responsible for religious freedom, they display the same intolerance that drove people to seek religious freedom in the first place.

[Platapus]

Yeah the early settlements were not exactly tolerant of religions other than theirs.

I remember a middle school teacher who got into a little trouble (back in the dark ages when I was in school). He pointed out that the early settlers (such as the Saints of 1620 fame or Jamestown 1607) did not come here for religious freedom for everyone, but for the opportunity to exercise religious intolerance for any religion other than theirs.

Theirs was a closed society and the other passengers on the Mayflower were not exactly welcome at the Plymouth settlement unless they subscribed to their religion.

Oh boy when the parents heard about that did the spam hit the fan. It was great! :rock:

[FIREWALL]

When a human body has had catastrophic injury... God, All the best Doctors and all the money in Fort Knox isn't going to help.

When your numbers up, it's up. :dead:

[joegrundman]

The road to Lourdes is littered with discarded crutches, but strangely no false legs:88)

[joegrundman]

Mental state of mind probably has more to do with how one lives or dies than any other factor.

And of course, god has divine intervention at times, but as is said, never test god! You'll be sorry. Maybe this is the part they don't get.

-S
this reminds me of a Daniel Dennet interview i read recently. i found it thought-provoking

It is seldom remarked (though often observed in private, I daresay) that many, many people who profess belief in God do not really act the way people who believed in God would act; they act the way people would act who believed in believing in God. That is, they manifestly think that believing in God is—would be—a good thing, a state of mind to be encouraged, by example if possible, so they defend belief-in-God with whatever rhetorical and political tools they can muster. They ask for God’s help, but do not risk anything on receiving it, for instance. They thank God for their blessings, but, following the principle that God helps those who help themselves, they proceed with the major decisions of their lives as if they were going it alone.



Those few individuals who clearly do act as if they believed in God, really believed in God, are in striking contrast: the Christian Scientists who opt for divine intervention over medical attention, for instance, or those who give all their goods to one church or another in expectation of the Apocalypse, or those who eagerly seek martyrdom.


Not wanting the contrast to be so stark, the believers in belief-in-God respond with the doctrine that it is a sin (or at least a doctrinal error) to count on God’s existence to have any particular effect. This has the nice effect of making the behavior of a believer in belief-in-God and the behavior of a believer in God so similar as to be all but indistinguishable.



Once nothing follows from a belief in God that doesn’t equally follow from the presumably weaker creed that it would be good if I believed in God—a doctrine that is readily available to the atheist, after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science. Peter de Vries, a genuine believer in God and probably the funniest writer on religion ever, has his hyper-liberal Reverend Mackerel (in his book The Mackerel Plaza) preach the following line: "It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us."


http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=200

http://www.science-spirit.org/images/pixel_clear.gif

[SUBMAN1]

...At the same time the Religious Right is claiming that America was founded on 'Christian Principles' and that Christianity is responsible for religious freedom, they display the same intolerance that drove people to seek religious freedom in the first place.Hahahaha! That is pretty funny! I've yet to see this in politics, but I've seen Mormons do this once. Maybe you are mistaking the two?

[SUBMAN1]

...after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science....



http://www.science-spirit.org/images/pixel_clear.gifI'd like to see that part. Might be interesting to see how this can be from a 2000 year old book. Discredits this guy completely. He operates off of assumptions to draw his conclusions. Nice.

-S

[joegrundman]

...after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science....



http://www.science-spirit.org/images/pixel_clear.gifI'd like to see that part. Might be interesting to see how this can be from a 2000 year old book. Discredits this guy completely.

-S

I think you may have mis-parsed the original sentence. Is that possible?:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

I think you may have mis-parsed the original sentence. Is that possible?:hmm:Nope. Not talking about the original sentence. I thought it wasn't a half bad interpretation until I read deeper.

Maybe you missed this part:

He operates off of assumptions to draw his conclusions. Nice.

You probably posted right as I edited it.

-S

[joegrundman]

care to elaborate?

[SUBMAN1]

care to elaborate?Already did. Read again! You post too fast! :D

-S

[joegrundman]

lol! not usuallly i don't - i'm just having one of those mornings

Daniel Dennet is a philosopher, so drawing logical conclusions from propositions is a big part of what he does, i guess.

Which exact assumption causes the problem?

[SUBMAN1]

lol! not usuallly i don't - i'm just having one of those mornings

Daniel Dennet is a philosopher, so drawing logical conclusions from propositions is a big part of what he does, i guess.

Which exact assumption causes the problem?I gave you one above.

Anyway, if he is a philosopher, then yeah, I'd have to agree with you that he does everything on assumptions! :D

Not that i agree with his assumptions of course.

-S

[joegrundman]

...after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science....

i think this here is a conclusion, not an assumption:hmm:

if you include the full sentence, then i think this becomes clearer:


Once nothing follows from a belief in God that doesn’t equally follow from the presumably weaker creed that it would be good if I believed in God—a doctrine that is readily available to the atheist, after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science.

[SUBMAN1]

...after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science....
i think this here is a conclusion, not an assumption:hmm:

if you include the full sentence, then i think this becomes clearer:


Once nothing follows from a belief in God that doesn’t equally follow from the presumably weaker creed that it would be good if I believed in God—a doctrine that is readily available to the atheist, after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science.
Not even in the slightest clearer. :doh: I think it is almost his intention to be unclear.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Man I'm stayin' out of this thread. This looks like a virtual Viet-nam. Call me a fence sitter, but I believe in both.:roll:
My mom has experinced this intorernce first hand.

Here's the official mcbee position:

1. When I need religious enlightenment, I look to scripture.
2. When I need scientific knowledge, I look to science.

I figure you can merge the 2 at some point, but that is beyond my capability of understanding. And frankly isn't relevent to what happens to me in the afterlife.

I think if God, really wanted us to worry about such a trivial subject, there would be more written on the subject, other than a few handful of verses.

There is a purpose for both.

[nikimcbee]

Crap, I'm getting drawn into this thread.:x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zpWHaMGnGA

The blind follower drives me crazy regarding the science/religion subject, on either side of the debate. :shifty:

[Digital_Trucker]

Crap, I'm getting drawn into this thread.:x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zpWHaMGnGA

The blind follower drives me crazy regarding the science/religion subject, on either side of the debate. :shifty:
The pendulum swings both ways, but never stops in the middle where peace and harmony reside.

Edit : It's things like this make you wonder http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSLI23405020080819?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews